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.

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.

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 Jacob Wetterling Registration Act, which created the sex offender registry; Megan’s Law, which mandates public disclosure; the Adam Walsh Act, which sets new guidelines: Each name

evokes the image of a child and, for those required to register as sexual offenders, specifics about the laws and what they require. The use of children’s names to create these acts and laws was initiated at the national level, and it occurs at the state level as well, such as Jessica’s Law in Florida, which strengthened the registry and added harsher penalties; and Chelsea’s Law in California, which also increased and enhanced penalties and sentencing.

In Texas, in 2024, eleven-year-old Audrii Cunningham was murdered by a man who was a friend of Audrii’s father and was living in a trailer on her grandparents’ property. He had an extensive and varied criminal background, including a conviction for child enticement—in Texas, not a registerable offense.

If media publicity is the measuring rod, Audrii’s Law, Texas House Bill 2000, is the only piece of

legislation that matters in the 2025 legislative session. Compared to the other laws with children’s names attached, it is somewhat mild. It will have no effect on Texans who are already registered. It seeks only to make the charge of child grooming a registerable offense going forward, which adds more names to an already bloated registry, a registry that studies uniformly validate as failing to improve public safety.

However, Audrii’s Law has far more in common than in opposition to the other laws.

•  Each of them was enacted as a response to a specific crime, in all cases the murder of a child or, in one instance, a teenager. In some cases, the perpetrator was a registered sexual offender, in some not.
•  In each case the law or act is named after the child victim, female in all but two instances.
• In all cases there was a great deal of public outrage; often vigils and memorials were held.
• Each act or law extends—or creates—the registry or consequences to persons on it.
• Each of the laws and acts ignores the vast body of evidence-driven data concerning not only the realities of child sexual abuse but also the failure of the sex offender registry to improve public safety.
• None of the laws or acts address the very real tragedy of child sexual assault—although that is how they are publicized. These cases involve isolated situations of murder; in at least one of the situations, a sexual component may not have been present.
• The perpetrator of each crime therefore has virtually nothing in common with the three-quarters of a million plus individuals who are required to register in America today.

Creating laws based on rare, horrific crimes is bad and dangerous public policy. It uses a tragic, one-off situation and applies it to a group of people who have not done nor will do what was done. It creates “umbrellas laws,” punishing entire categories of individuals for the crimes of a scant handful.

The result is a burgeoning prison population equaled by a burgeoning demand on taxpayer funds to support the imprisonment of so many who could adequately, safely, and much less expensively be managed through community supervision.

To be effective, laws must bear a direct relationship to the desired outcome. The desired outcome is to come as close as possible to eliminating child sexual abuse. The perpetrators of child sexual abuse are

almost always individuals who are not on the registry but are, dependent on the age of the child,  between 94 and close to 100% of the time family members and other persons trusted by the family.  A continued emphasis on the registry, which is based on “stranger-danger” and focuses exclusively on those already registered due to a previous conviction, has been ineffective in meeting the objective and will continue to be so.

The protection of children is too important a goal to be sabotaged by laws that do not address the issue and are disconnected from the desired outcome. Proven prevention programs, improved support for victims, and sentencing that allows for accountability with support for rehabilitation should be the building blocks that drive this vital goal. Using rare, tragic cases as the impetus for laws and naming those laws with the names of the child victims pull at the public’s heartstrings, make “heroes” out of legislators who support the laws, but fail miserably at meeting that goal.

The post Legislative bills named after child victims get A+ for emotion, F for effectiveness first appeared on NARSOL.

By Allen . . . I had been involved with child pornography since I was eleven years old. This persisted into my early twenties. I realized I had crossed a line at some point and had tried to stop several times, but I was never successful on my own, and I was too afraid to go to anyone for help. I expect that’s a familiar situation for many.

Early in 2019, shortly after my 22^nd birthday, events took place which finally convinced me to seek therapy. After several months of working with my therapist, I decided that I wanted to speak publicly about my experiences in the hopes of raising awareness among the people I felt needed it most — teenagers and their parents. But before I could do that, I had to make sure that I was straight with the law. I made the decision to contact the Austin Police Department and inform them of everything I’d been involved with for the past eleven years.

In my defense, I didn’t know any better at the time.

They interrogated me for about 90 minutes but ultimately let me go. I think this was only because they had no evidence other than my word and didn’t feel like they had enough to bring charges against me at that time. Leaving the police department, I felt free in a way that I hadn’t since I was a child. It seemed like I was entering a new chapter of my life.

Two weeks later I was arrested on charges of possession of child pornography. I would spend the next four months in jail before being released on bond. For much of that time I believed, as I’m sure you reading this might, that it was my confession which resulted in my arrest. But actually, no; police in a neighboring jurisdiction had launched an investigation into me because of a complaint they had received earlier in the year which I had known nothing about. In a supreme twist of irony, I had confessed to the police mere weeks before I would have been arrested anyway.

I told my attorney I would refuse to sign any plea which included the sex offender’s registry. Not for a year, or a day, or an hour. I did not trust that once I was on it, I’d ever be removed. I was under pretrial supervision for nearly three years when they finally gave me an offer I could live with: a felony conviction, two years in prison suspended for four years’ probation, court ordered sex offender treatment, keystroke monitoring, but no registration. The offense I would be pleading to was one that did not trigger a duty to register. I took the deal.

I considered just doing the time in prison. At that point I had 131 days in county jail and nearly three years on an ankle monitor. I hoped they might give me some time off in light of that. But I ultimately decided to go ahead with the probation.

I regretted it as soon as I discovered that Travis County probation mirrored or exceeded many of the restrictions imposed by the Texas sex offender registry. I was told I could not continue living in my apartment complex because it had a pool. I had to stay 1,000 feet away from designated child safety zones at all times. I couldn’t continue to work as a janitor in a restaurant because the work might put me in contact with patrons, including children. I couldn’t use the internet or go anywhere or do anything without being in violation of my probation conditions.

I honestly felt like prison would have been easier. I reached out to an attorney who had been recommended to me through the NARSOL affiliated group Texas Voices for Reason and Justice and asked if he could help me voluntarily revoke my probation. That attorney was Charlie Baird.

Rather than revoke my probation, Mr. Baird began campaigning the DA’s office to terminate it altogether. It took several months and a signature from the First Assistant District Attorney, but the end result was that my felony conviction was overturned and replaced with a misdemeanor and 100 days in jail, which became time served due to the 131 days I already had. All of the conditions of my previous sentence were erased.

I never dared to believe an outcome like this was even possible. It’s such a weight gone. There are still challenges, but now I feel like I have the freedom to move on, pick up the pieces, and try to reconstruct my life.

I am so grateful and thankful to everyone who helped me along the way.

The post A letter of gratitude first appeared on NARSOL.