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.

In advance of the all-advocates vigil to be held in Washington, D.C., March 3-4, this letter will be mailed to the Supreme Court.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (SCOTUS)

Dear Chief Justice Roberts,

We, the undersigned organizations, are writing to respectfully address the Court.

When the Court issued its decision on March 5, 2003, in Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, the lives of millions of American citizens were negatively and significantly impacted, specifically the lives of those required to register as sexual offenders as well as members of their families; and their communities were torn asunder.

To honor and remember the countless lives that have been damaged or destroyed as a result of this decision during the past two decades, advocates from across the nation will gather in Washington, D.C., on March 3 for a commemoration of this decision as well as the significant harm it has caused. On that day, we will gather near the steps of the Supreme Court Building starting at 11 a.m. for a vigil in order to shed light on the significant adverse effects of Smith v. Doe, as well as the now-disproven myth that the re-offense rate for sex-related crimes is “frightening and high” and that registration as a sex offender is “similar to membership in the Price Club.”

What are some of these significant adverse effects?

• Persons required to register are underemployed or unemployed due to their registry status.
• Persons required to register have very limited housing opportunities because state and local jurisdictions have passed laws–and applied them retroactively–that prohibit registrants from living near schools, parks and other locations. This has, in some cases, led to homelessness for both registrants and their families. Persons on the registry, including veterans, are often denied entry into senior care facilities.
• Persons on the registry are often denied entry into  homeless shelters and emergency shelters.
• Some persons required to register who are veterans are denied burial in a military cemetery even though they earned that benefit by serving the nation in military service.

Families of registrants are significantly affected.

• Spouses and partners are criticized for “standing by” a person on the registry.
• Economic and housing difficulties are exacerbated by the registration status of their loved ones—which is what causes the economic and housing difficulties.
• Children of registrants are often harassed and excluded from social occasions and school friendships and groups.

The threat of vigilante activity is part of a registrant’s daily life.

• Persons required to register are harassed, threatened, and assaulted; their cars and homes are damaged. Vigilantes, in fact, have murdered  persons required to register solely because they  are on a sex offender registry.
• The fear of being listed on a registry contributes to individuals taking their lives rather than facing the shame of the registry. One of those individuals was a state court judge in Maryland who chose death rather than endure the consequences of an accusation and the significant harm that would result from being required to register.

 How did it come to this? The words “frightening and high” quoted in Smith v. Doe were used to describe the re-offense rate of persons who have been convicted of

sexual crimes. The fact is those words were taken directly from an article published in a Psychology Today magazine. The article did not reflect any type of research but instead was a marketing statement that was later refuted by its author.

This finding influenced the Court’s reasoning in several key ways:

• The Court used the magazine claim of a high re-offense rate to justify Alaska’s Sex Offender Registration Act (ASORNA) as a necessary public safety measure.
• This claim also influenced the Court’s classification of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) law as regulatory rather than punitive, stripping registrants of their constitutional rights.
• This claim was also used to justify the retroactive application of the registry, denying registrants ex post facto protection.
• The “frightening and high” language has had and continues to have significant influence on later cases, having been cited in numerous federal and state cases to uphold various sex offender laws and restrictions that punish registrants and their families.

Those three horrible words — “frightening and high” — have been discredited over and over during the past 22 years. In fact, not one source can be found upholding their validity, and yet they live on. That is why on March 3, 2025, we will gather near the steps of the Supreme Court Building, and we will grieve. We will grieve for all of those whose deaths are directly linked to the registry. We will also grieve for the men, women, and children on sex offender registries today whose constitutional rights have been denied and continue to be denied. Finally, we will grieve for our nation, burdened with this blight on its history—and on its future.

Respectfully,

1. Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (ACSOL)
2. Family Safety Foundation
3. National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL)
4. Restorative Action Alliances
5. United Voices for Sex Offense Reform (UV4SOR)
6. Vivante Espero Foundation
7. Women Against Registry (WAR) and the WAR Family Foundation
8. AL: Alabama Voices
9. AK: Alaskans for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (AKRSOL)
10. AR: Arkansas Time After Time
11. AZ: Arizonans for Rational Sex Offense Laws (AZRSOL)
12. DE: Delaware Advocates for RSOL (DARSOL)
13. FL: Florida Action Committee
14. GA: Restore Georgia
15. HI: Hawaiian Voices
16. IA: Iowans Unafraid
17. IN: Indiana Voices
18. KS: Kansas CUAR
19. MA: Massachusetts Advocates for RSOL
20. MO: Missouri Advocates for RSOL
21. MD: Families Advocating Intelligent Registries (FAIR) Maryland
22. MI: Michigan Citizens for Justice
23. MN: Minnesota for our Rights
24. MS: Mississippi Advocates for RSOL
25. MT: Montana Advocates for RSOL
26. NC: North Carolina RSOL
27. NC- NARSOL-NC
28. ND: North Dakota Advocates for RSOL
29. NE: Nebraskans Unafraid
30. NM: Liberty and Justice Coalition New Mexico
31. NY: Restorative Action Alliance New York
32. OH: Ohio RSOL
33. OK: OK VOICES, INC.
34. OK: Oklahoma Reform Sex Offender Laws
35. OR: Oregon Voices
36. PA: Pennsylvania Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (PARSOL)
37. SC: South Carolina for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (SCRSOL)
38. SD: South Dakota Advocates for RSOL
39. TN: Tennessee Advocates for RSOL
40. TX: Texas Voices for Reason and Justice
41. VA: Safer Virginia
42. WV: West Virginia Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (WVRSOL)
43. WI: Wisconsin Advocates for RSOL

The post Does Smith v. Doe really hurt people today? first appeared on NARSOL.

By Stephen . . . The Florida 5th District Court of Appeals struck down the state driver’s license

designation of labeled Sexual Predator as compelled speech in a 2-1 decision, citing earlier wins in AL and LA over the same compelled speech issue.

While the ruling declared unconstitutional sections 322.212(5)(c) and 322.141(3)(a), Florida

Statutes(2021), the ruling is stayed and held in abeyance pending an appeal to the Florida Supreme Court asking the following question:

Does the requirement that a Florida driver license contain the designation SEXUAL PREDATOR for those persons within that category constitute compelled speech that is unconstitutional under the strict scrutiny test?

The Florida Supreme Court would have to go against every finding to date, both federally and at the state level, to overturn this decision. We shall see.

The post Winners in Florida: First amendment rights, removal of “Sexual Predator” from driver’s licenses first appeared on NARSOL.

By Kyle . . . We are witnessing a disturbing trend in America of punishing people after they have completed their official court-imposed sentence for an offense or even before any criminal charges have been filed and a person has been convicted of a crime.

In the arena of sex offenses, this manifests in several ways. Indefinite civil commitment-habeas corpus anyone? Registration beyond the term of the sentence. Registration results in numerous harms which clearly constitute “punishment”: serious housing restrictions; movement restrictions; domestic travel restrictions, making travel for business and pleasure a nightmare; employment challenges; and now, passport markings (A Scarlet Letter) because of the International Megan’s Law in conjunction with Angel Watch. This is not only “compelled speech” (as it is for registration in general) but restricts one’s ability to travel freely internationally for business or pleasure.

All of this is based upon a perceived, theoretical (and very inaccurate, skewed) risk of POTENTIAL FUTURE sexual criminal offending, a la the pre-crime of the movie Minority Report.

Additionally, the U.S. Federal Government refuses to issue a passport to anyone with an outstanding federal tax debt of at least $50,000.00, this before any criminal charges have been filed or a person has been convicted of a tax crime. Again, potential future crimes. Of course, they fear the person may flee the country and never return to settle the tax debt. Fair enough, but if that is the case, then charge them, arrest them, and try them; else, leave them alone.

Innocent until proven guilty? Not any longer in America apparently.

What this really comes down to are understandings of just what constitutes unconstitutional, compelled speech and whether domestic and international travel restrictions, housing restrictions, movement restrictions, etc., aren’t actually criminal punishment rather than just civil administrative, public safety policies.

You could even throw in the restrictions of a former felon with no violent weapon offense being forever banned from owning guns for personal protection, in violation of the Second Amendment. We know from 35 years of data that the argument of public safety holds no water. Given that, these can be seen as nothing less than intentional, vindictive criminal punishment (restrictions of constitutional rights) beyond the terms of the sentence without due process?

Does placing these types of restrictions on people past the terms of their original sentence or without any legal proceedings or due process constitute “punishment” rather than just “inconvenience”? I believe it clearly does. These types of extra-legal punishments need to be litigated out of existence or legislatively abolished. Failing that, it is a sad joke to call America a free country where all citizens enjoy protected, constitutional rights.

Kyle is a person required to register on the sex offender registry in Colorado.

The post Due Process: Another one bites the dust first appeared on NARSOL.