51 F.4th 1295
11th Cir.2022Background
- Florida enacted a sex-offender registry in 1997 that required one-time registration and ongoing in-person reporting of changes (within 48 hours); failure to comply is a third-degree felony.
- Over two decades the statute was amended repeatedly, expanding lifetime registration, the scope of required information, public disclosure (including internet access), and frequency of in-person re-registration.
- In 2018 the legislature shortened the temporary-residence threshold from five days to three days (triggering in-person reporting) and added a mandatory-minimum community-control sanction for registry violations.
- Plaintiffs are long‑time registrants (offenses pre‑1997) who sued the Florida Commissioner of Law Enforcement in Oct. 2018 challenging multiple constitutional defects (Ex Post Facto, Eighth Amendment, due process, and a Florida constitutional privacy claim). They sought injunctive/declaratory relief against enforcement.
- The district court dismissed the complaint as time‑barred under Florida’s four‑year statute of limitations; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed accrual and the continuing‑violation doctrine and affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accrual rule for constitutional claims challenging enforcement of a statute | Claims accrue when the statute is enforced or when a new enforcement threat arises, not simply at a statute’s enactment | Claims accrued at the effective date of each challenged statutory provision, so most claims are time‑barred | Accrual occurs when the plaintiff is injured by actual or threatened enforcement; effective date alone is not dispositive |
| Continuing‑violation doctrine for ongoing enforcement effects (e.g., reputational harms, verification/notification) | Ongoing enforcement (address verification, neighborhood notification, internet posting, repeated reporting duties) causes continuing harm within limitations period | Earlier enactments caused the initial injury; only lingering effects remain, so claims are time‑barred | Continuing‑violation doctrine can apply where enforcement is ongoing and actively inflicts new harms; plaintiffs plausibly alleged such ongoing enforcement, saving some claims |
| Timeliness of claims tied specifically to 2018 amendments (vagueness of travel reporting; mandatory‑minimum sanctions; travel‑related liberty interests) | 2018 amendments created new burdens and penalties; claims challenging those amendments accrued after 2018 and are timely | These are merely iterative changes to longstanding duties and thus accrued earlier | Claims based on the 2018 amendments (procedural‑due‑process vagueness, mandatory‑minimum strict‑liability theory, and travel‑related substantive‑due‑process) are timely |
| Timeliness of challenge to classification/irrebuttable presumption and Eighth Amendment punishment claim | The registry’s lifetime and blanket classification without individualized risk assessment is punitive and continues to injure plaintiffs | The injury occurred when plaintiffs were designated and required to register; that occurred long ago, so the claims are time‑barred | Claims attacking the initial designation/irrebuttable presumption and Eighth Amendment punishment accrued at designation and are barred by the statute of limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (suits against state officials to enjoin ongoing violations of federal law are permitted)
- Hillcrest Prop., LLC v. Pasco Cnty., 754 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2014) (harm from a statute generally occurs when it is enforced against the plaintiff)
- McGroarty v. Swearingen, 977 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2020) (publication of registry information can be a one‑time act; absence of continuing duties defeats continuing‑violation theory)
- Calloway v. Partners Nat’l Health Plans, 986 F.2d 446 (11th Cir. 1993) (distinguishes lingering effects of a past violation from a continuing violation)
- Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Hamilton, 453 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2006) (continuing‑violation doctrine permits suit where new violations occur within the limitations period)
- Rozar v. Mullis, 85 F.3d 556 (11th Cir. 1996) (accrual when plaintiff knows or should know facts supporting a claim)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (accrual occurs when plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action)
- Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (discrete acts are not saved by the continuing‑violation doctrine)
- Knight v. Columbus, 19 F.3d 579 (11th Cir. 1994) (repeated discrete violations each give rise to a new accrual)
- Lovett v. Ray, 327 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2003) (one‑time governmental acts with continuing consequences do not constitute continuing violations)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity limits federal courts from instructing state officials about state law)
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (sex‑offender registry upheld against ex post facto challenge under certain circumstances)