Cases That Shaped the Registry

Registration laws are written by legislatures, but courts decide what they can and cannot do. These are the decisions that set the limits — why registries can reach old convictions, where they have gone too far, and what is still being fought over. Each one is summarised in plain language and linked to the opinion itself.

47 decisions · 7 issues · 7 still in court · Last reviewed October 15, 2026

Start with the landmarks Browse by issue

Four ways into the same law

This page explains how courts have read and challenged the registry. For the words of the statutes themselves, how states compare, or what changed this week, use the rest of the site.

Start here

10 decisions that explain most of the rest

New to this? Read these first, roughly in this order. Nearly every other case on this page builds on, distinguishes, or pushes back against one of them.

  1. 01 U.S. Supreme Court2003 Smith v. Doe Alaska’s registry is civil regulation, not punishment, so it can apply to people convicted before the law existed.
  2. 02 U.S. Supreme Court2003 Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe A registry based only on a conviction does not require a hearing on whether the person is dangerous today.
  3. 03 Federal appeals court2016 Does #1–5 v. Snyder Michigan’s registry had grown so burdensome that it became punishment — the first federal appeals court to say so after Smith v. Doe.
  4. 04 State high court2021 People v. Betts Michigan’s 2011 registry law is punishment and cannot reach earlier offenses — and courts cannot fix it by reviving an older version.
  5. 05 U.S. Supreme Court1957 Lambert v. California A person cannot be convicted of failing to register if they had no idea the duty existed and no reason to know.
  6. 06 U.S. Supreme Court1997 Kansas v. Hendricks A state may confine a person after their sentence ends if a mental abnormality makes them dangerous. That is civil, not a second punishment.
  7. 07 Federal appeals court2005 Doe v. Miller Iowa’s 2,000-foot residency rule is constitutional — the leading federal case upholding where-you-can-live restrictions.
  8. 08 U.S. Supreme Court2017 Packingham v. North Carolina A blanket ban on registrants using social media violates the First Amendment. The internet is “the modern public square.”
  9. 09 U.S. Supreme Court2015 Grady v. North Carolina Strapping a GPS monitor to a person is a Fourth Amendment search, even when the state calls the program civil.
  10. 10 U.S. Supreme Court2019 Gundy v. United States Congress could let the Attorney General decide how SORNA applies to older convictions — but only a plurality agreed on why.

01 · Punishment & retroactivity · 19 cases

Is registration punishment — and can new rules reach old convictions?

The Constitution bars punishing someone under a law passed after the crime. Whether registration counts as punishment decides whether a state can apply new or harsher rules to people convicted years earlier. The U.S. Supreme Court said no in 2003; a growing number of courts have since found that heavier schemes cross the line.

U.S. Supreme Court2003

Smith v. Doe

538 U.S. 84 (2003)

Alaska’s registry is civil regulation, not punishment, so it can apply to people convicted before the law existed.

Limited
State high court2016

Doe v. Thompson

304 Kan. 291, 373 P.3d 750 (2016)

Kansas’s 2011 registry amendments were held punitive — in a decision overruled the same day it was filed.

Overruled
Federal appeals court2016

Does #1–5 v. Snyder

834 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2016)

Michigan’s registry had grown so burdensome that it became punishment — the first federal appeals court to say so after Smith v. Doe.

Good law
State high court2020

Commonwealth v. Lacombe

234 A.3d 602 (Pa. 2020)

Pennsylvania’s rewritten scheme for older offenses, Subchapter I, is not punishment and can apply retroactively.

Good law
State high court2025

People v. Kardasz

No. 165008 (Mich. Dec. 19, 2025)

Michigan’s 2021 registry law is punishment — but for a Tier III offense, it is not cruel or unusual.

Good law
U.S. Supreme Court2026

Ellingburg v. United States

607 U.S. 163 (2026)

Federal criminal restitution is punishment for Ex Post Facto purposes — the Court’s first major application of the Smith v. Doe test in years.

Good law
Federal trial court2026

Florida Action Committee, Inc. v. Glass

No. 4:26-cv-00388-MW-MJF (N.D. Fla.)

A challenge to Florida’s whole registration scheme, arguing its combined requirements amount to punishment.

Pending
Federal appeals court2026

Jane Does 1-11, et al. v. Flannigan

No. 25-1892 (8th Cir. Oct. 5, 2026)

Missouri's registration law survives an Eighth Amendment challenge, and every other claim, without the court deciding whether it is punishment.

Not yet final
State high court2026

People v. Smith

No. 168200 (Mich. Sept. 9, 2026) (order)

Michigan’s 2021 registry law cannot reach pre-2011 offenses. More than 20,000 people came off the registry within days.

Good law
02 · Due process & notice · 4 cases

What notice and hearing is a person owed?

Due process asks whether the government gave a fair chance to be heard before taking something away. For registries the questions are whether a person can be punished for a duty they never knew about, whether they get a hearing on current risk, and whether a registry rule can reach rights as basic as living with one’s own family.

U.S. Supreme Court1957

Lambert v. California

355 U.S. 225 (1957)

A person cannot be convicted of failing to register if they had no idea the duty existed and no reason to know.

Good law
U.S. Supreme Court2003

Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe

538 U.S. 1 (2003)

A registry based only on a conviction does not require a hearing on whether the person is dangerous today.

Good law
Federal appeals court2026

Henry v. Sheriff of Tuscaloosa County

No. 24-10139 (11th Cir. July 6, 2026) (en banc); panel on remand Sept. 29, 2026

Alabama’s ban on some registrants living with their own children burdens a fundamental right, so it must pass strict scrutiny.

Not yet final
State high court2026

State v. Sims

No. 114,959 (Kan. Aug. 14, 2026) (per curiam)

Three convictions for failing to pay a $20 quarterly registration fee were reversed, but the justices split on why.

Good law
03 · Public notification · 2 cases

Can the state tell the public who is on the registry?

Megan’s Law made registries public. Courts in the 1990s were asked whether publishing names, photos and addresses violates privacy or amounts to punishment. Most upheld notification, and those rulings are still the base of every public registry website.

State high court1995

Doe v. Poritz

142 N.J. 1, 662 A.2d 367 (1995)

The original Megan’s Law survives — but community notification requires a chance for judicial review first.

Good law
Federal appeals court1997

Russell v. Gregoire

124 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 1997)

Washington’s registration and community notification are regulation, not punishment, and publishing public-record facts is not a privacy violation.

Good law
04 · Where you live, speak & go online · 9 cases

How far can restrictions beyond registration go?

Residency zones, internet bans, tracking devices, Halloween rules and signs on the door are not registration itself but rules layered on top of it. They raise different constitutional questions — speech, search, movement, family — and courts have been more willing to strike them down.

Federal appeals court2005

Doe v. Miller

405 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2005)

Iowa’s 2,000-foot residency rule is constitutional — the leading federal case upholding where-you-can-live restrictions.

Good law
State high court2009

Commonwealth v. Baker

295 S.W.3d 437 (Ky. 2009)

Kentucky’s residency restrictions cannot be applied to people whose offenses came before the restrictions were enacted.

Good law
Federal appeals court2014

Doe v. Harris

772 F.3d 563 (9th Cir. 2014)

Requiring registrants to report every online identifier within 24 hours likely violates the First Amendment.

Good law
U.S. Supreme Court2015

Grady v. North Carolina

575 U.S. 306 (2015)

Strapping a GPS monitor to a person is a Fourth Amendment search, even when the state calls the program civil.

Good law
State high court2015

In re Taylor

60 Cal.4th 1019 (2015)

Blanket enforcement of Jessica’s Law’s 2,000-foot rule on San Diego parolees was unconstitutional because it drove homelessness without protecting children.

Good law
U.S. Supreme Court2017

Packingham v. North Carolina

582 U.S. 98 (2017)

A blanket ban on registrants using social media violates the First Amendment. The internet is “the modern public square.”

Good law
Federal appeals court2022

McClendon v. Long

22 F.4th 1330 (11th Cir. 2022)

A Georgia sheriff could not make registrants display “No Trick-or-Treat” signs in their yards. That is compelled speech.

Good law
Federal trial court2026

OUTMemphis v. Skrmetti

No. 2:23-cv-02670 (W.D. Tenn.); appeal No. 26-5346 (6th Cir.)

A challenge to Tennessee’s aggravated prostitution registry requirement for people living with HIV survives under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Under review
Federal appeals court2026

Sanderson v. Hanaway

Nos. 24-3120, 24-3204 (8th Cir. Jan. 2, 2026); cert. pending, No. 26-34

Missouri’s requirement that registrants post a “No candy or treats” sign on Halloween compels speech and fails strict scrutiny.

Under review
05 · Federal law & travel · 5 cases

What does federal law (SORNA) require, and of whom?

The federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 2006 (SORNA) sets national standards and makes failing to register after crossing state lines a federal crime. These cases decide who it covers, from when, and how far its reach extends when someone moves or leaves the country.

U.S. Supreme Court2010

Carr v. United States

560 U.S. 438 (2010)

The federal failure-to-register crime covers only interstate travel after SORNA took effect, not moves made before it.

Good law
U.S. Supreme Court2012

Reynolds v. United States

565 U.S. 432 (2012)

SORNA did not reach people convicted before 2006 until the Attorney General validly said it did.

Good law
U.S. Supreme Court2013

United States v. Kebodeaux

570 U.S. 387 (2013)

Congress can apply SORNA to someone with a federal conviction who was already under a federal registration duty when released.

Good law
U.S. Supreme Court2016

Nichols v. United States

578 U.S. 104 (2016)

SORNA, as then written, did not require a registrant to report leaving the country. Congress had already changed that.

Superseded by statute
U.S. Supreme Court2019

Gundy v. United States

588 U.S. 128 (2019)

Congress could let the Attorney General decide how SORNA applies to older convictions — but only a plurality agreed on why.

Good law
06 · Getting off the registry · 4 cases

Once on the registry, how does a person get off it?

Most states allow removal or termination after a set period or on petition, and courts decide how those petitions work: who is eligible, which version of the law applies, whether the state can appeal a removal, and whether a lost petition can be tried again.

State appeals court2025

State v. Korson

No. 2D2024-0807 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 26, 2025)

The State could not appeal an order removing a registrant from Florida’s registry.

Limited
State appeals court2026

Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement v. Garcia

No. 4D2025-2547 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 2, 2026)

Registry removal is a civil matter, FDLE can appeal a removal order, and the law in force when a petition is filed governs it.

Not yet final
State high court2026

Gardei v. Taylor

No. S25G1209 (Ga. Oct. 14, 2026)

A registrant can ask a Georgia court to declare whether he still has to register in future. That is not an advisory opinion.

Not yet final
State high court2026

State v. Lingerfelt

No. 38A25 (N.C. Aug. 14, 2026)

A legal ruling on a removal petition that is not appealed binds every later petition.

Good law
07 · Civil commitment & treatment · 4 cases

Can someone be held after their sentence ends?

Civil commitment lets a state confine a person found to have a mental abnormality that makes them dangerous, after their prison term is over. These cases set the limits on that confinement and on the treatment programs that go with it.

U.S. Supreme Court1997

Kansas v. Hendricks

521 U.S. 346 (1997)

A state may confine a person after their sentence ends if a mental abnormality makes them dangerous. That is civil, not a second punishment.

Good law
U.S. Supreme Court2002

Kansas v. Crane

534 U.S. 407 (2002)

Commitment does not require total inability to control behavior — but it does require proof of serious difficulty controlling it.

Good law
U.S. Supreme Court2002

McKune v. Lile

536 U.S. 24 (2002)

A prison treatment program may require disclosing past offenses, even uncharged ones, if the penalty for refusing is not severe enough to compel.

Good law
U.S. Supreme Court2010

United States v. Comstock

560 U.S. 126 (2010)

Congress has the power to civilly commit sexually dangerous federal prisoners after their sentences end.

Good law
Timeline

How the law got here

The same questions, decade by decade. The dot shows which kind of court decided each case.

  1. 1947–1989

    Before the modern registry

    Registration existed in a few states and cities, mostly for any felony. The first limits come from due process.

    1. 1957Lambert v. California
  2. 1990–1999

    Megan’s Law and the first challenges

    Every state adopts registration and public notification. Courts uphold both, and civil commitment.

    1. 1995Doe v. Poritz
    2. 1997Kansas v. Hendricks
    3. 1997Russell v. Gregoire
  3. 2000–2009

    The framework is set

    The Supreme Court declares registration civil in 2003. Congress passes SORNA in 2006. State constitutions begin to diverge.

    1. 2002Kansas v. Crane
    2. 2002McKune v. Lile
    3. 2003Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe
    4. 2003Smith v. Doe
    5. 2005Doe v. Miller
    6. 2008Doe v. State
    7. 2009Commonwealth v. Baker
    8. 2009State v. Letalien
    9. 2009Wallace v. State
  4. 2010–2019

    Limits and splits

    The Court narrows federal reach and strikes a social media ban. The Sixth Circuit finds Michigan’s law punitive; more states follow.

    1. 2010Carr v. United States
    2. 2010United States v. Comstock
    3. 2011State v. Williams
    4. 2012Reynolds v. United States
    5. 2013Doe v. Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services
    6. 2013Starkey v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections
    7. 2013United States v. Kebodeaux
    8. 2014Doe v. Harris
    9. 2015Doe v. State
    10. 2015Grady v. North Carolina
    11. 2015In re Taylor
    12. 2016Doe v. Thompson
    13. 2016Does #1–5 v. Snyder
    14. 2016Nichols v. United States
    15. 2016State v. Petersen-Beard
    16. 2017Commonwealth v. Muniz
    17. 2017Packingham v. North Carolina
    18. 2019Gundy v. United States
  5. 2020–now

    Now

    Mass removals in Michigan, the right to live with one’s children, and challenges to whole state schemes.

    1. 2020Commonwealth v. Lacombe
    2. 2021People v. Betts
    3. 2022McClendon v. Long
    4. 2025People v. Kardasz
    5. 2025State v. Korson
    6. 2026Ellingburg v. United States
    7. 2026Florida Action Committee, Inc. v. Glass
    8. 2026Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement v. Garcia
    9. 2026Gardei v. Taylor
    10. 2026Henry v. Sheriff of Tuscaloosa County
    11. 2026Jane Does 1-11, et al. v. Flannigan
    12. 2026OUTMemphis v. Skrmetti
    13. 2026People v. Smith
    14. 2026Sanderson v. Hanaway
    15. 2026State v. Lingerfelt
    16. 2026State v. Sims
How to read a case

Which court, and whether it still stands

A decision from one state does not control another state, and a federal appeals court speaks only for its own circuit. Every case here carries both labels.

Court

  • U.S. Supreme Court

    Binds every court in the country on the federal question it decides.

  • Federal appeals court

    Binds federal courts in its circuit only. Persuasive, not binding, everywhere else.

  • Federal trial court

    Binds the parties to the case. Other courts may find it persuasive.

  • State high court

    Final word on that state’s own law and constitution — in that state only.

  • State appeals court

    Binds lower courts in its district or state until the state high court says otherwise.

Status

  • Good law

    Still followed. Later cases may have narrowed it — see Scope.

  • Limited

    Later decisions or laws have narrowed it.

  • Superseded by statute

    The legislature changed the law the case interpreted.

  • Overruled

    A higher or later court rejected it.

  • Pending

    Still before the trial court. Nothing is decided yet.

  • Under review

    An appeal or petition to a higher court is pending.

  • Not yet final

    Decided, but the time for rehearing or review has not run out.

Legal Disclaimer

These are plain-language summaries of court decisions, written for general education. A ruling binds only the courts beneath the court that issued it, later decisions and new laws can change what it means, and how it applies to any one person depends on facts a summary cannot capture. Read the opinion itself, and talk to a lawyer licensed in your state before relying on any case. This page is not legal advice.