OK: Win in Branded License Case. NARSOL Lawsuit survives Motion to Dismiss.
There is encouraging news out of Oklahoma yesterday! In a lawsuit supported by NARSOL, a federal judge has denied the State’s motion to dismiss a constitutional challenge to Oklahoma’s law requiring certain registrants to carry driver’s licenses and identification cards stamped with the words “SEX OFFENDER.”
The plaintiffs argue that forcing them to display this label every time they present identification (whether at a pharmacy, doctor’s office, airport, bank, or workplace) violates the First Amendment by compelling them to convey a government message they do not wish to express. It also subjects them and their families to stigma, distrust, revulsion, poor treatment.
The State attempted to have the case thrown out before it could move forward. The court rejected those arguments, holding that the proper state official can be sued, that the plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a constitutional violation, and that the case may proceed. The court also refused to strike the proposed class action allegations, leaving open the possibility that thousands of affected Oklahomans could ultimately benefit from the lawsuit. Importantly, the judge recognized the real-world impact of these branded licenses and accepted as true the plaintiffs’ allegations that the label subjects them to fear, stigma, humiliation, and potential harm whenever they must show identification.
This ruling does not decide whether the law is unconstitutional. But it is an important first step. The case is allowed to proceed, and the plaintiffs will now have the opportunity to prove their case.
Progress is rarely immediate. It happens one case, one ruling, and one courageous plaintiff at a time. This decision is a hopeful reminder that meaningful change remains possible and that the fight for fairness, justice, and equal treatment under the law continues to move forward.
OK Doc 48 Opinion and Order Denying MTD
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wow, this is the reason that finally drove me out of Florida after 50+ years. I had an appointment with an oncologist to deal with some rather suspicious spots on my lungs. I had to provide my drivers license, SS card and insurance information. I saw the receptionist staring at something then looking up at me sitting in the waiting room. She called over two other nurses who also .looked down then at me a couple of times. Obviously, I knew. When I retrieved my identification I told the receptionist I had to retrieve something from my car. I left, and never went back. The next day, we put our home up for sale.
Did they deny you care?
The statute on our I.Ds is so ridiculous. When you go to buy beer, you think the gas station clerk knows what those few little numbers mean? I highly doubt it.
We are in dire need of positive news right now. Thank you FAC! I experience “fear, stigma, humiliation, and potential harm whenever” I walk out my front door, go to a job or meet someone new.
Will this help us here in Florida if they win the case and would it only be for the words or also for those of us that have to have the statute on our IDs?
it will be many years before it does as if this is in a different circuit/district/area court. but i think a win here would create a federal court spit and thus go to SCOTUS
Screwed, Which federal circuit has ruled the other way?
I THOUGHT OUR CIRCUIT DID and LA. or Mississippi case not to long ago where they said less stringent /noticeable markings were OK. ok i just did some digging perhaps it was state court but in the eleventh circuit rejected a similar compelled speech claim against sex offender designations on drivers lic. corbitt v. sec’y of the ala. l. enf’t 115 F,4th 1335, 1352-53 (11th cir 2024) and perhaps Doe 1, see mcguire v. Marshall Alabama 2024 there the court rulled that there is a less restrictive means but still allowed it perhaps im not ready or comprehending these correctly