News Sharing and General Commentary
Members, advocates, and all followers of Florida Action Committee’s news website:
Please use this post to bring our attention to fresh news or media content. You may also use the comment area on this post to leave comments on any topic relevant to FAC’s journalistic mission.
Question: Why does this post exist?
Answer: FAC comment policy for all other posts is that comments must be relevant to the post topic and cannot contain links. For this post and only this post, these policies are suspended. You may comment on any topic and may share links. Comments must still be news worthy or informative, as well as related to the registry in some way.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Are the emails to update my donations for FAC legit?
Politicians in Robes: When the Supreme Court Pretends Politics Stops at the Marble Steps
A recent New York Times article, “Justices Hint at Strains as Supreme Court Comes Under Scrutiny,” reported on several public appearances by Supreme Court justices defending the Court’s legitimacy at the same time that internal tensions and public criticism appear to be growing. The article noted that Chief Justice John Roberts rejected the idea that the justices are “political actors,” while Justice Amy Coney Barrett similarly pushed back against the public perception that the Court is made up of “politicians in robes.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, by contrast, warned that public confidence suffers when the Court issues quick, unexplained emergency orders with serious real-world consequences.
That phrase — “politicians in robes” — deserves serious attention.
Technically, Supreme Court justices are not elected politicians. They do not campaign for office, shake hands at county fairs, or beg voters for support every few years. They are nominated by presidents and confirmed by senators. But that does not make the process apolitical. It makes it politically filtered, politically engineered, and politically protected.
Presidents do not nominate justices at random. Senators do not confirm them in a vacuum. Interest groups, ideological organizations, legal societies, donors, activists, political parties, and presidential administrations all understand exactly what is at stake. Judicial philosophy is not some harmless academic preference. It determines how a justice views punishment, liberty, executive power, civil rights, voting rights, criminal procedure, administrative power, and constitutional restraint.
So when the Court tells the public, “We are not political,” many Americans hear something else:
Do not believe your own eyes.
The New York Times article described Roberts saying that people wrongly think the Court is “making policy decisions” and wrongly view the justices as “purely political actors.” Barrett reportedly made the same basic argument, saying the Court is not simply “politicians in robes.” But the same article noted that the recent Louisiana voting-rights decision was 6–3 and divided along ideological lines, the familiar pattern in many of the Court’s most controversial cases.
That is the problem. The Court wants the public to judge it by its self-description, not by its behavior.
When a politically selected Court repeatedly reaches results that align with the political goals of the movements that selected its members, the public is not irrational for noticing. The public is not being ignorant. The public is reading the room.
Justice Jackson’s comments cut closer to the truth. She warned that the judiciary’s legitimacy depends on public confidence and criticized unexplained emergency orders that produce real-world consequences without giving the public a clear explanation of the Court’s reasoning. That criticism matters because law without explanation begins to look less like judicial reasoning and more like raw authority.
And for no class of people has the Supreme Court’s political fiction been more obvious than people convicted of sexual offenses.
The “Civil, Not Punitive” Fiction
The Court’s sex-offender jurisprudence is where the “we are not political” claim begins to collapse under its own weight.
In Smith v. Doe, the Supreme Court held that Alaska’s sex-offender registration law was nonpunitive, meaning it could be applied retroactively without violating the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Court accepted the idea that the registry was a civil regulatory system rather than punishment.
That decision became one of the most damaging legal fictions in modern constitutional law.
The Court looked at registration as though it were just a neutral information system. But the real-world effects are obvious: public branding, forced reporting, employment damage, housing exclusion, public shaming, police compliance checks, criminal prosecution for technical violations, and lifelong social banishment in many cases.
If that is not punishment, then the word punishment has been drained of ordinary meaning.
The Court did not merely decide a case. It gave states a constitutional blueprint: call the law “civil,” attach severe consequences, deny that those consequences are punishment, and then apply the scheme retroactively.
That is not neutral judging. That is judicial permission.
Dangerous Enough for the Website, But Not Dangerous Enough for a Hearing
In Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, the Court rejected a due-process challenge by people who argued they should receive a hearing before being publicly listed as dangerous sex offenders. The Court reasoned that because Connecticut’s registry was based on conviction alone, current dangerousness was not legally relevant under that statute.
That is the shell game.
The registry is sold to the public as a danger-warning system. The public is encouraged to believe the listed person is currently dangerous. The entire political justification is public safety. But when the registrant asks for a hearing to challenge current dangerousness, the State says: dangerousness does not matter.
So which is it?
If the registry is about danger, due process should require proof of danger. If it is not about danger, then the State should stop presenting it to the public as a danger-warning system.
The Court allowed the government to have it both ways.
Civil Commitment: Prison After Prison, But With a Different Label
In Kansas v. Hendricks, the Supreme Court upheld civil commitment for sexually violent predators after completion of a criminal sentence, so long as the person is found to have a mental abnormality or personality disorder making future predatory sexual violence likely.
Again, the magic word was civil.
A person finishes a prison sentence. The State then seeks to keep him locked up because of past conduct and predicted future danger. The building may be called a treatment facility. The proceeding may be called civil. The paperwork may avoid the word punishment. But the result is still physical confinement by the government after the criminal sentence has expired.
That is not some minor administrative inconvenience. That is the State saying: we are not done with you.
And once again, the Court accepted the label.
SORNA and the Expansion of Post-Sentence Control
In United States v. Kebodeaux, the Supreme Court upheld federal authority to apply SORNA registration requirements to a person after his federal military conviction and after his release, holding that the requirements fell within Congress’s authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause.
That case matters because it shows how registration becomes a continuing legal restraint after the original sentence. The punishment ends on paper, but the government’s control continues through registration duties, reporting requirements, and criminal penalties for noncompliance.
This is where the civil-regulatory fiction becomes most dangerous. Once the Court says registration is not punishment, the government can keep adding burdens while pretending the person has not been further punished.
The sentence ends.
The custody ends.
The supervision ends.
But the State’s leash remains.
Gundy and the Delegation of Retroactive Power
In Gundy v. United States, the Court rejected a nondelegation challenge to SORNA, allowing the Attorney General authority over how SORNA applies to people convicted before the law was enacted. The Court held that this delegation did not violate the nondelegation doctrine.
That case should trouble anyone who cares about separation of powers.
Congress created a registration system backed by criminal penalties. Then it allowed executive authority to help determine how that system applied retroactively. For ordinary criminal laws, that kind of retroactive machinery would raise alarms. But because the subject involved sex offenders, the constitutional alarm bells were softened.
That is the recurring theme.
When the affected class is unpopular enough, constitutional protections become flexible.
The Pattern Is Clear
The Court says it is not political.
But in sex-offender cases, it repeatedly accepted government labels over lived reality.
The State says registration is civil.
The Court accepts it.
The State says public notification is not punishment.
The Court accepts it.
The State says current dangerousness does not matter, even though the registry is publicly justified as a danger-warning system.
The Court accepts it.
The State says post-sentence confinement is treatment, not punishment.
The Court accepts it.
The State says retroactive federal registration can be managed through congressional and executive machinery.
The Court accepts it.
And then the justices wonder why the public sees politics.
The problem is not that the public misunderstands the Court. The problem is that the Court expects the public to ignore consequences and worship labels.
“Politicians in Robes” May Be Impolite, But It Is Not Irrational
Justice Barrett may object to the phrase “politicians in robes.” Chief Justice Roberts may insist the Court does not simply make policy. But when constitutional rights rise or fall depending on the popularity of the affected group, ordinary people are right to question whether law is truly doing the work.
Sex offenders are the perfect test of constitutional principle because they are among the least sympathetic groups in American law. If constitutional protections mean anything, they must apply when the person invoking them is despised. Otherwise, rights are not rights. They are privileges reserved for people society still likes.
The Supreme Court’s sex-offender cases show what happens when fear becomes doctrine.
The Court did not have to call registration punishment. It chose not to.
The Court did not have to deny dangerousness hearings. It chose to.
The Court did not have to bless post-sentence confinement under civil labels. It chose to.
The Court did not have to stretch federal power over people who had already completed their sentences. It chose to.
Those choices have political consequences. They shape policy. They authorize state power. They affect liberty, movement, housing, employment, family life, reputation, and the ability to exist in society.
So no, Supreme Court justices are not elected politicians.
But they are politically selected actors exercising enormous political power while wearing robes and calling it neutral judgment.
And for people trapped under the sex-offender registry, the difference is not academic. It is the difference between liberty and lifelong civil death.
Respectfully,
Charles D. Gaskin Jr.
Those that support, defend, promote and enforce the registry are proud of what they should be ashamed of.
I’ve found the same thing—you really need to be professional, polite, and courteous, and also stay on your toes when you go to the registration office. The officials there handle the registration process, and in my area I sometimes even see the officer who arrested me last year when I failed to register my RV.
Most of the time they are polite, but I’ve also seen days when they are stressed or very backed up, and they can come across as rude or unwilling to help with the registration process. Fortunately, in my county we have a designated officer who handles registration, and she is usually very kind, even when she’s under pressure.
Overall, you just have to stay polite, be courteous, and double-check all your paperwork to make sure everything is in order
On bad days, I’ve seen people get arrested over technicalities more often than on better days. I think this is something that should be addressed. Ideally, people should be able to go in to register without feeling like they might suddenly be charged with a felony for something they didn’t knowingly do. It can be very stressful to only find out about a violation or issue on the spot, instead of being given a clearer chance to correct it beforehand.
Compliance Is Not Cooperation
I understand trying to remain polite and professional during registration. In fact, for many people, that is probably the wisest approach for self-preservation. Nobody benefits when a bad moment gets turned into a new criminal charge, a violation, or another excuse for enforcement to tighten the screws.
But I also think there is a bigger issue here. A lot of people have been conditioned to measure the registry by how polite the people enforcing it are. If the person at the desk is respectful, if the deputy does not yell, if the home-check officer is calm, or if they act friendly, then the system gets described as “not that bad.” But that is a very low bar. Courtesy from an employee does not change the nature of what is being done.
A person can be treated politely while still being degraded. A person can be spoken to respectfully while still being publicly marked, tracked, exposed, interrupted, and reminded that the sentence never really ended. And even if they act friendly, that friendliness does not erase the public flyer left on a front door. It does not erase the embarrassment of neighbors being questioned. It does not erase the anxiety of waiting weeks or months for someone to come back. It does not erase the fear that a missed form, a misunderstood rule, or a technical mistake could become a new criminal case.
It should also be noted that the same people who smile, joke, and say polite things are often the same people who can put a person in handcuffs if the system decides there has been a violation. That is not a small detail. A friendly tone does not change the power relationship. They may be courteous in the office, but they are still part of an enforcement machine that can destroy a person’s freedom over paperwork, timing, address questions, travel reporting, or technical compliance.
I know that firsthand. I was once ordered by a deputy to rise from my seat to give a print. I refused to rise, and I was thrown out of the registration office that day and required to return another day. I have also been required to give the registration unit a heads-up phone call before arriving because of my numerous objections. That is not because I am trying to break the law. It is because I do not obey simply because someone with authority tells me to. I am stubborn, and I expect to be shown the law that requires my compliance.
When I returned to finish registration and was again asked to rise to give a thumbprint, I calmly stated what the statute required as I understood it. I would allow the sheriff to print me, and I would stand if the statute required me to stand. But the law said I was to allow a deputy sheriff to print me, then in my view that meant the deputy also had to do his part. He could rise from his seat, come around the desk, and roll out the print as required. I was not refusing to comply with the law. I was refusing because he assumed I was subject to his authority over me as if I were an inmate being ordered by a jailer and not a free person.
That distinction matters. Compliance and cooperation are not the same thing. I will comply with what the law actually requires. But I am not going to volunteer my dignity, my silence, my gratitude, or my assistance in making the process easier for the same system that brands, monitors, and humiliates me.
There is a major difference between saying, “I will do what the statute requires,” and saying, “I will help you process me as efficiently as possible.” I am not there as a volunteer. I am not there as a willing participant. I am there under threat of criminal prosecution. So no, I do not feel obligated to make the experience convenient, pleasant, or frictionless for the people enforcing it.
I have also been arrested for supposedly moving because a deputy could not find my residence. The charges were later dismissed, but that did not erase the fact that I was still arrested and had to post bail (money that could not be recovered). And the deputy who arrested me was just like the kind described here: polite, professional, calm, and courteous. That is exactly the point. A polite arrest is still an arrest. A professional violation is still a violation. A calm deprivation of liberty is still a deprivation of liberty.
So when people say, “Well, they were nice,” I understand what they mean, but I do not find much comfort in it. The person smiling across the desk may be the same person, or part of the same system, that can put cuffs on you if something goes wrong. They can say “thank you” all they want. I see no reason to thank anyone for forcing me through a process I believe is punitive, degrading, and constitutionally offensive. They can say thank you until they turn blue. I can simply turn and walk away.
That being said, I cannot in good faith say I believe the angry man who tore up his paperwork was simply “wrong.” I understand that anger. In fact, if I am being honest, that very well could have been me on the wrong day. There is a certain kind of rage that comes from being forced to participate in your own public humiliation while everyone around you pretends it is just a routine administrative process.
I feel a great deal of anger toward this system and toward anyone who supports it in any shape, form, or fashion. I vehemently disagree with every aspect of this draconian law. I do not see one good, fair, humane, or constitutional thing about it. I see punishment dressed up as paperwork. I see banishment dressed up as public safety. I see lifelong suspicion dressed up as civil regulation.
And yes, I have been guilty of similar behavior. I understand the urge to push back, to refuse to quietly absorb the humiliation, and to make it clear that you are not okay with what is being done to you. I believe every registrant has the right to make the process as difficult as legally possible. Not by breaking the law. Not by threatening anyone. Not by giving the system an easy excuse to retaliate. But by asking questions, demanding clarity, documenting everything, refusing unnecessary conversation, challenging errors, knowing the rules, asserting rights, and never pretending the process is acceptable.
That is the part society seems unwilling to face. The registry is constantly defended as civil, administrative, and non-punitive, but the lived experience says otherwise. When the government requires repeated reporting, public exposure, home checks, neighbor inquiries, employment consequences, housing consequences, and the constant threat of prosecution for paperwork errors, that is punishment in every practical sense.
So when someone loses their temper, I may not recommend it, but I understand it. I am not going to sit here and pretend that every person should calmly smile while being degraded. Some people survive by being polite. Some people survive by staying quiet. Some people survive by going against the grain and making their displeasure known. To each his own.
If you want to be polite, okay. If you want to be firm, okay. If you want to be rude without breaking the law, okie dokie. Just understand the risk. This system is not built to tolerate resistance. It is built to punish it.
But politeness should never be mistaken for acceptance. Friendliness should never be mistaken for fairness. And anger should not automatically be treated as irrational when the system itself is degrading, punitive, and deliberately humiliating.
So yes, stay calm if that protects you. Stay professional if that helps you get through it. But let’s not pretend there is anything good about this system simply because some of the people carrying it out are courteous or friendly. A cage does not become freedom because the guard has good manners, and punishment does not become civil because it is delivered with a smile.
Respectfully,
Charles D. Gaskin Jr.
Well said.
They’re being “nice” to protect their jobs, not your feelings.
Also, in their minds, they think that what they’re doing is meaningful and worthwhile, so arguing with them is like talking to a brick wall. Their fragile morale is easy to deflate, but all you’ll get is red flagged and aggressively monitored for potential violations in the future.
The registry is too militant and those that enforce it all share the same drill-instructor mentailty. I should be given a Nobel Peace Prize for the level of restraint I exercise around these people.
A cage does not become freedom because the guard has good manners, and punishment does not become civil because it is delivered with a smile.
[Moderated].
I understand the anger behind this, and honestly, I think a lot of people in this community understand it too. The registry creates frustration, humiliation, and resentment, especially when people feel they are being treated less like citizens and more like permanent suspects.
That said, I see part of your comment was moderated, however, the message you were trying to convey is worth hearing. Maybe it could be rewritten using alternate language so the point comes through without getting removed. We may not always agree on tone, but the frustration itself is understandable
I also agree that arguing in the moment often accomplishes very little and may only cause more problems later. That does not mean people should be silent. It means we have to choose the battlefield carefully. Sometimes restraint is not surrender. Sometimes it is strategy.
So, please retry so the message get through to the community.
THE REGISTRIES ARE COMING!
SC senator pushing for a violent offender registry. Let the registry proliferation begin!
https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/sc-lawmakers-unveil-logans-law-year-after-22-year-olds-death-columbia-home-invasion/6BYHKW44HNG4ZCSZDEGRJE3OTI/
Everyone who is wise should oppose registries in all forms. The above article is reason enough. Soon they will come for you too!
Do you see yourself or a loved one potentially being on one of these lists one day?
Sex offender registry (non-victim offenses, failure to report an offense included as well)
violent offender registry (many crimes are considered violent, even if violence was not involved. Do your research if you have a criminal record, no matter how old)
DUI registry
Drug abuser registry
child abuse/neglect registry
animal abuse/neglect registry
Elder abuse/neglect registry
Why should you care if you might end up on one of these potential lists? Because lists like these are already being used to deny:
jobs
apartments
voting rights
places to live, regardless of housing type
emergency shelter during disasters
access to hospitals
access to assisted living later in life
access to public and private recreational facilities and businesses
access to cruise lines
access to public assistance programs
The sex offender registry is RETROACTIVE, and future registries are likely to be also. That means your decades old DUI or drug charge could one day land you on a FOREVER LIST with lifelong restrictions and obligations, with stiff penalties.
The time to take a stand against ALL REGISTRIES is now, before the elites in power find a way to dis-empower everyone except themselves. In the end, it’s always been about CONTROLLING PEOPLE, not public safety.
@Anonymous
Interesting. Thank you for sharing.
Does Disney employ Sex Offenders?
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2026/05/07/cbp-arrests-27-cruise-line-workers-in-san-diego-as-part-of-child-sexual-exploitation-investigation/
Let them create a registry for everything. The more burdened the system becomes, the more likely it’ll all fail.
It made me angry when Graham Cracker said: “We already have a national sexual predator database.”
He knows EXACTLY what he’s doing to stoke outrage for a new registry! They know it will NEVER make a difference or prevent anything, it’s JUST to expolit outrage and pander for VOTES!
I have a question. I was placed on the list in New York 21 years ago. In New York they have a 3 tier system. Level 1 being the lowest (not on the website) up to Level 3. My offense was pictures on a computer. I was a level 1, originally for 10 years until the law changed and made it 20. It has been about 22 years, and I am no longer on the list in New York. Here is the problem – I now live in Florida. When I moved down here, I was put on the list here. Even though I am off the list in New York, I am told that Florida’s list is lifelong. Since I am no longer on the list in New York, is there any way to get off of the list in Florida? I am not in a position right now to hire a lawyer. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
25 years after being released from all sanctions you can petition
In what states is that true?
Florida.