Split en banc Florida appeals court finds no First Amendment violation in “sexual predator” label on state IDs

In this post from January 2025, I flagged a ruling by Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal holding that a state requirement for convicted sexual predators to have the words “SEXUAL PREDATOR” on their driver’s licenses violated their First Amendment rights.  That 2-1 decision panel decision was reheard en banc, and late last week the full Fifth District rejected the constitutional claim of those with branded Florida licenses.  The full 92-page ruling with concurrences and dissents is available at this link.  And the opnion for the court in Crist v. Florida, No. 5D2022-2966 (5th App. Fla. Aug. 15, 2025), gets started this way:

Florida law requires that Michael Crist’s driver license state a truth about his criminal history: he is a “SEXUAL PREDATOR.” § 322.141(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2019).  Florida law also prohibits Crist from possessing a driver license “upon which the sexual predator . . . marking[ ]” is “not displayed” or has “been altered.” Id. § 322.212(5)(c). Crist stands convicted of violating this latter statute, but he urges us to overturn his conviction on the ground that his marked driver license compels him to speak in violation of the First Amendment.  After careful study of relevant historical practices, the United States Supreme Court’s compelled-speech jurisprudence, and lower-court decisions applying that jurisprudence, we reject Crist’s constitutional claim and affirm his conviction.

Among other notable passages, the majority opinion flags a split among lower courts on these issues.