NARSOL is proud to stand alongside its affiliate, the Florida Action Committee

(FAC), as it undertakes a comprehensive legal challenge to Florida’s sex offender registration laws and related local ordinances.

On August 11, 2026, FAC filed Florida Action Committee, Inc. v. Glass et al., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. This far-reaching federal lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of Florida’s increasingly restrictive registration

The lawsuit raises several significant constitutional challenges, arguing that Florida’s registration framework has evolved beyond public notification into a system of continuing punishment and government-imposed restrictions that affect virtually every aspect of daily life.

Among the issues addressed in the lawsuit are:

• Cruel and Unusual Punishment: challenges to residency and presence restrictions that effectively exclude registrants from substantial portions of their communities and, in some circumstances, contribute to displacement and homelessness.
• Ex Post Facto Violations: challenges to the retroactive application of new registration requirements and restrictions to individuals whose offenses occurred before those requirements were enacted.
• Freedom of Movement: challenges to travel reporting requirements that substantially burden the ability to travel between states and internationally.
• Freedom of Movement and Innocent Presence: challenges to laws that criminalize otherwise innocent conduct, including simply being present in certain public places.
• Due Process and Vagueness: challenges to laws and ordinances containing ambiguous terms that leave individuals uncertain about what conduct is prohibited and create opportunities for arbitrary enforcement.
• Freedom of Speech: challenges to restrictions that prohibit or limit communication and expressive activities in public places, including parks and other traditional public forums.

The litigation seeks declaratory and injunctive relief that would prevent enforcement of the challenged provisions against FAC members.

NARSOL’s Commitment

Recognizing the scope, complexity, and importance of this litigation, NARSOL has pledged up to $25,000 to support expert witness testimony.

We are pleased to support this comprehensive and complex legal action. We stand firmly with our fellow advocates in challenging harmful and unconstitutional laws and practices.

This litigation represents an important effort to hold government accountable when registration requirements and associated restrictions exceed constitutional boundaries. Its implications extend beyond Florida, as the legal questions raised touch on fundamental constitutional protections that affect registrants and their families nationwide.

NARSOL will continue to support efforts to advance constitutional protections, challenge excessive and counterproductive registration policies, and promote laws grounded in constitutional principles and sound public policy.

We stand with FAC in this important undertaking.

The post NARSOL Supports Major Constitutional Challenge to Florida’s Sex Offender Registration Laws 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.