Split Florida appeals court finds First Amendment violation in “sexual predator” label on state IDs

Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal handed down an interesting ruling late last week in Crist v. Florida, No. 5D2022-2966 (5th App. Fla. Jan. 10, 2025) (available here).  This press piece explains the basics effectively, and it starts this way:

A divided appeals court Friday ruled that a state requirement for convicted sexual predators to have the words “SEXUAL PREDATOR” on their driver’s licenses violates First Amendment rights.  The 2-1 decision by a panel of Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal said the required designation is compelled speech that is not narrowly tailored to meet the state’s goals of informing the public about the presence of sexual predators.

Here is a notable passage from the majority opinion in Crist:

The point of strict scrutiny is that the government must carefully tailor a compelled speech policy that is no broader than necessary to advance its interest in protecting the public. In this regard, not every situation calls for the compelled public disclosure that an individual has previously committed a sex crime. A requirement that a registrant publicly wear a governmentally compelled tee shirt or badge saying SEXUAL PREDATOR would be highly effective in notifying the public about the person’s past sexual criminality; but it is doubtful such a requirement would be narrowly tailored to pass constitutional analysis.  The same would be true of tee shirts or badges saying FELON, STALKER, MURDERER, and so on for those released into society but who may have committed crimes with elevated risks of recidivism. In a similar way, the SEXUAL PREDATOR designation on driver licenses is not a narrowly tailored means to inform only those persons who have the greater need to know about an individual’s past sexual criminality.

Here is how the dissenting opinion starts:

Is it constitutional for the People of Florida to require a convicted sexual predator such as Michael Crist — as a consequence of his conviction — to have his state-issued Florida driver license marked with the words “SEXUAL PREDATOR” as one means of protecting vulnerable children from those who may desire to sexually abuse them?  Of course it is.

Yet, remarkably, the majority in its ill-conceived opinion concludes otherwise and declares unconstitutional sections 322.212(5)(c) and 322.141(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2021).  Undeterred by the long-standing and strong presumption that duly enacted Florida statutes are constitutional, the majority races into a dangerously wayward opinion that ends in a repugnant result with deleterious effect.

I presume we will hear from the Florida Supreme Court on this issue, and its ruling might in turn lead to US Supreme Court attention.