That would be the Clement’s case
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/52983235/Clements_v_Secretary,_Department_of_Corrections_LEE

Schedule to be heard late December or early 2027 looks like

When the judge opened the door to the question of constitutionality, yet no party raised the punitive‑effects analysis, the DA attempted to justify the registry by invoking the federal military draft — a compulsory federal duty that has no doctrinal connection to a state‑level civil regulatory scheme. Because the DA introduced a federal obligation into a civil proceeding without challenge, the proper response would have been to redirect the court to the foundational constitutional inquiries the judge had implicitly raised: Your Honor, since you asked, then the only answer is a question, if you don’t mind. Is this system civil or criminal? Are the states united or sovereign? Is the scheme state or federal? These are the real questions that determine whether the registry, as applied, remains within constitutional bounds, and they directly expose the mismatch between the DA’s federal‑duty analogy and the civil framework the court was relying on.

Yep, that is why, I always check my paperwork as I am walking out of the building before I get into me car. It is our job to make sure our information is correct.

Key Reasons Why Civil Lawsuits Are Blocked

* Statutory Immunity: The statute explicitly shields the department, employees, and assisting agencies from civil lawsuits.
* Good Faith Presumption: The law legally presumes that personnel acted honestly and intentionally followed correct protocols.
* Clerical Error Protection: Simple technical mistakes or data entry errors do not violate or overcome this good faith presumption.
* Public Safety Intent: The immunity exists so fear of lawsuits does not delay or stop the state from publishing registry updates.

What It Takes to Overcome Immunity
To bypass this protection, a plaintiff must prove willful misconduct rather than a mistake. A lawsuit can generally only proceed if it is proven that an employee intentionally falsified information, acted with malicious intent, or knowingly violated a person’s rights in bad faith.

Tereto,

Either you mistyped your comment or you are completely incorrect. It’s just the opposite! The Registration Statute contemplates that a government agent might make a clerical error, and it indemnifies such person for their errors “The department…or an employee, agency, or any individual or entity acting at the request or upon the direction of any law enforcement agency is immune from civil liability for damages for good faith compliance with the requirements of this section … and shall be presumed to have acted in good faith in compiling, recording, reporting, or releasing the information. The presumption of good faith is not overcome if a technical or clerical error is made…” F.S. §943.0435(10)

Registrants view our site as a resource, so it’s important that the information they find here is accurate.

Where ? Can you site this statue because there been supposed cases where errors on the entry end have happened and they still blame the PFR

There is a clause in the statutes we sign, that if the registry clerk errors on the registry, it is grounds for a civil lawsuit.

On this I would agree. I thought i read a while back about a Habeas case about whether or not SORNA places us “In Custody”