FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
communications@narsol.org

Austin, TX – February 26, 2026 – The National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL) has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in the Western District of Texas challenging the current deregistration process in the state that arbitrarily bars those convicted in federal court from deregistration.

The proposed class action lawsuit Burton, et al. v Martin et al., submitted on behalf of the plaintiff and all similarly situated plaintiffs in Texas, contends that the state has arbitrarily denied individuals convicted in federal court access to the same deregistration process provided by law to state-convicted registrants with substantially similar offenses.  NARSOL’s staff attorney and Texas-based attorney Courtney Vincent jointly filed the action.

Under the state interpretation of current Article 62.404 law, only those convicted of a sexual offense in Texas state court can deregister. Those convicted in federal court cannot.

According to the complaint, the state has violated constitutional provisions of the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process. In addition, the statute in question places a venue bar for the deregistration process by requiring registrants to file the deregistration action “. . . with the trial court that sentenced the person.” While those convicted in state court can do this, those with federal convictions cannot. Citing the venue restriction, the state has denied all federally convicted registrants from the deregistration process. The lawsuit argues that a restriction on venue should not be construed as a jurisdictional limitation for deregistration in state court.

The class action suit, represented by the plaintiff and NARSOL, is partially funded by Texas Voices for Reason and Justice, NARSOL’s Texas state affiliate. The complaint requests that the Court:

• Permanently enjoin Defendants from treating Article 62.404’s filing directive as a jurisdictional bar to motions filed by federally convicted registrants;
• Declare that, to the extent Defendants continue to interpret or enforce Article 62.404 as categorically barring federally convicted registrants from accessing any judicial forum, such interpretation and enforcement violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment;
• Declare that Defendants’ interpretation and enforcement of Article 62.404 violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by creating a statutory remedy that is illusory and denying federally convicted registrants any meaningful opportunity to be heard;

The National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL) is a civil rights organization dedicated to promoting evidence-based policies and constitutional protections for individuals affected by sex offense laws.

They will provide updates as the case progresses.

Note to editors: Court documents and supporting materials available upon request.

The post NARSOL Files Federal Lawsuit Challenging Texas Deregistration for Federal Convictions first appeared on NARSOL.

On January 27, 2026, NARSOL, in collaboration with AZRSOL, filed a federal lawsuit in Arizona challenging the constitutionality of the Internet restrictions imposed by the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department on individuals convicted of sex offenses. Titled Kenneth Soule et al. v. Michael Cimino, in his official capacity as Chief Probation Officer of the Maricopa County Adult Probation

Department, Case No. 26-cv-00560, the case has four named Plaintiffs, all of whom are under the custody of Maricopa County Adult Probation Department and seek greater Internet access while on probation. Plaintiffs seek to have the case certified as a class action.

Plaintiffs claim that the current policy and practices of the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department unreasonably restrict Plaintiffs’ access to the Internet in violation the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. In particular, Plaintiffs allege that the Department’s policies violate the First Amendment because the restrictions imposed are “overly broad” in that they “impose categorical restrictions on Internet access for individuals on probation for sex offenses, regardless of offense conduct, supervision progress, or individualized risk assessment.” Plaintiffs’ Complaint at ¶ 71. Plaintiffs allege the Department’s policies violate the Fourteenth Amendment because the Department imposed its Internet restrictions “without individualized findings, written justifications, or any standardized review mechanism.” Id. at ¶ 81.

NARSOL-affiliated attorneys Mark Weinberg and Adele Nicholas have brought the case, along with local Arizona counsel Samantha K. DuMond of the Dumond Law Firm in Phoenix Arizona.

The post NARSOL files constitutional case in Arizona first appeared on NARSOL.

By John . . . NARSOL’s Pennsylvania affiliate, the Pennsylvania Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (PARSOL), celebrates a major legal victory for workers with criminal records following yesterday’s decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Phath v. Central Transport LLC. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal and held that Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA) protects job applicants even when an employer learns about a past conviction directly from the applicant rather than from a state criminal-records file.

In PARSOL’s sign-on as an amicus to the court filing, PARSOL Managing Director John Dawe wrote, “We are deeply invested in ensuring that individuals with criminal records are afforded fair opportunities for employment and reintegration into society, and our interests align with Pennsylvania’s long-standing policy to avoid

unwarranted stigmatization and unreasonable restrictions on those with conviction histories.”

In its opinion, the Third Circuit emphasized that “. . . job hunting is never easy; having a criminal conviction makes it much harder,” and confirmed that CHRIA “. . . limits when and how employers may use an applicant’s criminal history.” The panel concluded that Central Transport could not avoid CHRIA’s requirements simply because it received information about Rodney Phath’s fifteen‑year‑old robbery conviction from him during the hiring process rather than through a background check.

This outcome directly aligns with the position advanced in an amicus brief joined by PARSOL and more than fifteen other nonprofit organizations, led by the National Employment Law Project (NELP) and litigated by Outten & Golden LLP. The amici urged the court to reject a narrow reading of CHRIA that would have allowed employers to sidestep the law’s protections simply by asking applicants to self‑disclose their records instead of obtaining them from a state agency.

“PARSOL was proud to stand with NELP and our many partners in this case to defend Pennsylvanians’ right to fair consideration for employment,” said Dawe. “The court squarely rejected an attempt to create a massive loophole in CHRIA and affirmed that employers cannot sidestep the law simply by asking applicants to disclose their own criminal histories. We continue to champion fully-inclusive ban‑the‑box and fair‑chance hiring laws in the Commonwealth that would further reduce stigmatization and help ensure candidates are evaluated on their qualifications, not solely on past convictions.”

The amicus brief detailed how millions of Pennsylvanians live with criminal records and face steep barriers to work that are often unrelated to their ability to safely and successfully perform a job. It also highlighted Pennsylvania’s long‑standing public policy, rooted in state constitutional principles, that disfavors blanket employment exclusions based on prior convictions and instead requires that any consideration of a conviction be tied to the actual duties of the job. CHRIA codifies that policy by allowing employers to consider felony and misdemeanor convictions only to the extent they relate to an applicant’s suitability for the specific position and by requiring written notice when criminal history is used to deny employment.

In Phath, after Mr. Phath disclosed a fifteen‑year‑old armed‑robbery conviction, Central Transport rejected him for a truck‑driving job  despite his commercial driver’s license, relevant experience, and federal port clearance. The Third Circuit’s decision means his CHRIA claim may now proceed, and it sends a strong signal to employers across Pennsylvania and the Third Circuit that they must comply with CHRIA’s substantive and notice requirements whenever they rely on an applicant’s criminal history, regardless of how that information is obtained.

“This decision is a critical affirmation that CHRIA has real teeth,” PARSOL’s spokesperson added. “For people with records—including those with sexual‑offense histories who are committed to living offense‑free and contributing to their communities—access to fair employment screening is essential for public safety, family stability, and successful reintegration.”

PARSOL extends its gratitude to the National Employment Law Project, which led the amicus project; to co‑counsel at Outten & Golden LLP; and to all of the organizations that joined the brief, whose collective expertise and advocacy helped underscore the importance of CHRIA to workers, families, and communities throughout Pennsylvania.

The post PARSOL Applauds Third Circuit Victory Protecting Fair Chance Hiring in Pennsylvania first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy and John . . . Portez Smith arrived outside Jesse Grover’s duplex early on Sunday, November 17, 2024, yelling through the closed door, “Grover, you’re a f—ing pedophile,” and when Grover opened the door, Smith pulled out a gun and shot him to death. Jesse Grover was registered on Pennsylvania’s sex offender registry as a Tier I offender. This holiday season, Grover leaves behind his wife, parents, four siblings, four stepchildren, and numerous other family members. He is remembered for his sweet smile and gentleness and as a beloved family member, a good friend, and a lover of reading, cooking, and music.

Grover’s murder is not the first registrant to face such a fate. Gary Blanton was a young married father of two infant sons living in Washington State when, in 2012, Patrick Drum shot him to death for being on the Washington registry for a consensual sexual act with another minor from twelve years prior. Drum then went to the home of registrant Jerry Ray and killed him. With the Washington sex offender registry in hand, he was on the way to shoot a third registrant in another county when apprehended (https://archive.is/T5Zc5).

Charles and Gretchen Parker were at their South Carolina home when Jeremy and Christine Moody stopped in front of their house and raised the hood of their car. Charles was a mechanic and went outside to help. The Moodys entered their home and slaughtered both Charles, a South Carolina registrant, and his wife Gretchen, with a gun and knife. Like Drum, they already had targeted their next victim, another person on the sex offender registry, when they were apprehended. In the wake of these murders, the National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws asked then-governor Nikki Haley to have the home addresses of registrants removed from the public view of the online registry; the request was disregarded.

Portez Smith’s rant at Jesse Grover reveals almost as much about his beliefs as his senseless act of violence does. It is commonly believed that everyone on a registry has a sexual offense against a child: This is a fallacy. In every state, virtually every crime that can have a sexual component carries with it an obligation to register. In many states, non-sexual crimes require registration. And in some states, many of those required to register are minors. Blanton was the same age as his teenage girlfriend when he was convicted for consensual sex with her; her parents pushed for an arrest when they learned of the relationship. Statistics suggest that a third of the offenders against minors are themselves minors. Children have been put on a registry as young as eight.

The most disturbing factor about these murders is that a segment of the community views these vigilantes as heroes. Social media and online articles about these incidents further this perception by allowing ten or even twenty comments praising the vigilante for each one condemning the act of violence. Recently, the glorification of “predator catchers” has driven groups of gangs and teenagers to show up at registrants’ homes to “carry out justice.”  Numerous studies document various degrees of violence and harassment registrants and their family members face daily. 

Blanton’s wife publicly asked that Drum’s supporters stop the harassment of her and her children. According to CBS News, the judge at Drum’s hearing admonished those who were in the courtroom in support of Drum to cease their activity. Leslie said she and her family had been spat upon, had things thrown at their car, had their house targeted, and more.

So what is the answer? The first, quickest, and most straightforward answer is a “band-aid” measure that NARSOL asked South Carolina to take: remove the home and business addresses from public view. This will at least require vigilantes to work a little harder to achieve their goals. Supporters of the registry argue that knowing where registrants live protects their communities, but the USDOJ reports that more than 93% of the cases of sexual harm are committed by someone known to the victim, and 95% are not registrants. Additionally research shows that sex crimes have the lowest recidivism rates of any crime class tracked except murder.

The long-term fix is not an easy one. It involves changing hearts and minds toward a willingness to put aside emotional responses and adopt rational and logical facts. Several decades of evidence-based data show us the sex offender registry is ineffective at every level. It does not make communities safer, protect children from sexual abuse, help those who have caused harm, nor heal those who have been harmed. Instead, it puts families of registrants in harm’s way, impedes rehabilitation, destroys the opportunity to rebuild damaged lives, and costs taxpayers an enormous and ever-burgeoning amount of resources.

One bright spot on the horizon is the increasing prevalence of restorative justice programs. These alternatives to harsh punishment for offenders and nothing for those offended bring the two sides together—for those who choose it—to dialogue, understand each other better, express remorse and forgiveness, and pave the road for future reconciliation. Because the majority of sexual harm happens within families, this is an excellent choice. 

Policymakers need to abolish the secondary punishments accompanying registration. Special restrictions such as residence, proximity, and Halloween restrictions are statistically useless in furthering public safety and child protection. Abolishing them would save significant public funds that could be better used for evidence-based prevention measures.

Most legislators claim to be fiscally responsible, data-informed, and against unfunded mandates. Yet they seem to forget those words when it comes to tightening the plethora of laws and restrictions (such as residence, proximity, and Halloween restrictions) that affect persons required to register. Politicians wanting to project a “tough on crime” platform turn to sex crimes because society’s taboo on anything sexual combined with the visceral nature of sex crimes causes electors and officials to abandon rationality for emotionalism. 

Meaningful reform will begin when enough citizens protest the waste of human lives and public monies and when decision-makers at all levels adopt evidence-based solutions to preventing sexual harm and rehabilitating those with past sexual offenses.

* A version of this article also appeared in the December 20, 2024 issue of Merion West.

The post Vigilantism & Death: A Harsh Reality for Citizens on the ‘Sex Offender’ Registry first appeared on NARSOL.

Stephen . . . NARSOL recently assisted two Texas registrants who reported that they were being improperly required to remain on the state’s sex‑offense registry despite having successfully completed deferred adjudication—a legal process in which a court

withdraws a permanent conviction upon the individual’s completion of probation without further incident. After review by NARSOL’s Legal Committee, the organization retained seasoned Texas attorney Scott Smith to present the matter to the Department of Public Safety. DPS agreed with the legal analysis and administratively removed both individuals from the registry. Following that determination, an additional six registrants were subsequently removed, with more cases currently under review. 

Individuals may qualify for removal if they entered deferred adjudication prior to September 1, 1999, and successfully completed the probationary period. NARSOL anticipates that additional Texas registrants may be eligible under the same legal framework. Those seeking guidance on the proper procedure for review and potential removal are encouraged to contact NARSOL’s Texas affiliate, Texas Voices for Reason and Justice, for detailed assistance at  info@texasvoices.org. 

The post NARSOL Secures Registry Removals for Texans Wrongly Listed After Deferred Adjudication  first appeared on NARSOL.

The post NARSOL suit filed in Oklahoma over marked driver’s licenses first appeared on NARSOL.

By Larry . . . The case is Bruce Henry v. the Sheriff of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, in his official capacity, the District Attorney of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, in his official capacity, and the Attorney General of the State of Alabama, in his official capacity. Alabama Code § 15-20A-11(d)(4) prohibits adult registrants who have been convicted of a sex offense involving a child from residing or conducting an overnight visit with a minor, including their own children. No exceptions are provided in the statute. An “overnight visit” occurs whenever an offender is in the same place as a minor for any part of the period “between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.” § 15-20A-4(14). According to the court, “Section 15-20A-11(d) prevents Henry from being present in the same home as his son (1) at any time between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.; (2) for more than four hours a day on three consecutive days; (3) for more than four hours a day on ten or more days during a calendar month; or (4) in any other circumstance where he is habitually and systematically present at his son’s home.” Opinion at 8.

In 2013, Bruce Henry pled guilty to one count of possessing images of minors. The decision noted that Henry has completed his term of imprisonment, married, and fathered a son. But Section 15-20A-11(d)(4) doesn’t allow him to live with his son. In 2021 he challenged Section 15-20A-11(d)(4) facially and as applied to him. He claimed that Section 15-20A-11(d)(4) violates his First Amendment right of intimate association and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection and due process of the law. Henry sought a declaratory judgment that Section 15-20A-11(d)(4) is overbroad and unconstitutional, both facially and as applied, and he requested that the district court enter an injunction against the defendants in order to prevent the law’s enforcement. In particular, he argued that Section 15-20A-11(d)(4) interferes with perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests that the Fourteenth Amendment secures, which is the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. He cited Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923), a precedent dating back more than 100 years.

According to the court, “Alabama has not narrowly tailored its law to achieve its goal. The law offers no escape hatch whatsoever. So, a person who’s been convicted of a qualifying offense has no chance to avoid the law’s prohibition by proving that they wouldn’t be dangerous to their child. Rather, in every case without fail, Alabama’s law prohibits sex offenders who’ve been convicted of a qualifying offense from residing with their child, even if the individual can prove they present no risk to their child.” Opinion at 3. The court went on to say, “As a result, it deprives some individuals convicted of qualifying offenses of their fundamental right to establish a home and bring up their own children, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. And it deprives some children in Alabama of the presence of a parent who may be fit to lovingly care for and raise them.” Id.

Alabama argued that Section 15-20A-11(d)(4) is constitutional as applied to Henry because individuals convicted of a sex offense do not have a fundamental right to reside with their child. And the state asserted that even if Henry does have such a right, the law survives strict scrutiny because it is narrowly tailored to advance Alabama’s compelling interest in protecting children. The court stated, “We reject Alabama’s first claim and hold that Section 15-20A-11(d)(4) is unconstitutional as applied to Henry. The Constitution guarantees parents the right to live with their children. Henry did not necessarily forfeit that right when he committed a sexual offense, yet Section 15-20A-11(d)(4) automatically deprives him of that right…” Opinion at 16-17. The 111-page opinion illuminates additional arguments that the court did not find compelling.

NARSOL is elated that the Eleventh Circuit has protected one of the most cherished rights one has. Attorney Paul Dubbeling from North Carolina handled the initial case as well as the appeal. At this time, we do not know if Alabama plans to file a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.

Larry  is on the NARSOL board and the Legal Committee.

The post Victory in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . Texas HB 3499 , authored by Rep. Vincent Perez, will remove the homestead exemption from the property tax responsibility of Texas’ registered citizens—every one of them homeowners occupying the property. This piece includes what was sent to Rep. Perez the morning of Feb. 28.

This bill will hurt children and families. Many registrants, and especially those who own the property where they live, have families. Any financial support taken from these registrants will mean less financial support for their families and the children of those families.

While statistics show that approximately 95% of all registrants will never commit another offense, registrants who have become homeowners are the most likely to have fully integrated into their communities as stable, contributing, responsible, law-abiding citizens. This legislation is a slap in the face to them and suggests to them that they have embraced their lifestyles in vain.

Legislation providing homeowners an added measure of protection is well ingrained in Texas’ history. The first homestead act was passed in 1839 to encourage home ownership and protect families from foreclosure. It is one of the oldest and most comprehensive homestead protection systems in the United States. The amount of the homestead exemption granted Texans for their property taxes is increased on a regular basis, showing the value placed by government on home ownership in Texas.

There is no rational connection between public safety and this legislation. Registrants often have difficulty finding suitable housing; to remove from them an incentive for becoming home owners is unconscionable. It flies in the face of rehabilitation and all evidence-based data. It is driven by choosing the most hated, identifiable group possible and singling them out as the basis for increasing their taxes.

This proposed legislation starts to tear down something that is part of Texas’ heritage. This legislation serves two purposes: to increase the amount of taxes paid to the state and to punish even further a group of citizens who have already, some 30 or more years ago, accepted responsibility and been punished for their crimes through a criminal justice system that has rehabilitation as its end goal. This legislation is wrong on so many levels.

It is just plain wrong.

The post Texas bill would make registrants inelegible for right granted all Texas citizens first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . The Michigan Supreme Court, on July 29, 2024, issued an opinion that may result in close to 300 people being removed from Michigan’s sex offender registry. The case, People v. Lymon, revolved around whether individuals who had committed crimes that were non-sexual in nature could appropriately be required to register; the court held that they could not and that to do so was unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, the minority opinion, included in the decision, is garnering almost as much interest as the majority one. Emails directed to the NARSOL communications desk have been concerned with what it says and the message that it sends and perpetuates. That minority opinion is this: ” ‘The majority opinion ignores that countless Michigan families rely on the registry to ensure their safety. … Registration provides vital information for the parent who must choose a babysitter or entrust a child with a volunteer coach,’ said Zahra, who was joined by Justice David Viviano.”

August 6, 2024, NARSOL sent an email to 48 Michigan media outlets, all whose focus is Michigan news and politics. This is a copy of the email:

The post To MI media: Sex offender registry increases risk of harm to children first appeared on NARSOL.

By Mark . . . On May 31, 2024, the parties filed their opening summary judgment briefs in Antrim v. Carr, 19-cv-396 (Eastern District of Wisconsin), in which plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s statutory scheme requiring that certain individuals convicted of sexual offenses be forced to wear a GPS monitoring device for life, even after they are off of any criminal supervision. Attached below are each side’s opening summary judgment briefs. Response briefs in the case are due July 5, 2024. NARSOL is intimately connected to the litigation, having subsidized the full costs of the plaintiffs’ two expert witnesses — Kate Weisburd, a law professor at George Washington University School of Law, and Kelly Socia, Professor in the School of Criminology and Justice Studies and a Fellow for the Center for Public Opinion at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell.

The post NARSOL cases in Illinois and Wisconsin moving forward first appeared on NARSOL.