Legislative Tracker — April 2026 Update

CS/CS/CS/SB 212 became Chapter 2026-17 and adds “public swimming pool” to several parts of Florida’s sex-offense restriction framework. The enrolled law defines that term broadly enough to include conventional pools, spa-type pools, wading pools, special-purpose pools, spray pools, splash pads, and other water recreation attractions, including many pools serving apartments, condominiums, mobile home parks, subdivisions, townhouses, and government-held-open facilities.

The law reaches beyond a simple recreation rule. It plugs the new pool category into residency restrictions, proximity and contact provisions, governmental registry-search duties before appointment or employment at places where children regularly congregate, school and child-care notice duties, supervision conditions, and warrantless-arrest authority.

The Florida Senate bill page lists Governor approval on March 31 and Chapter No. 2026-17 on April 1, with an effective date of July 1, 2026.

This does not simply add one more location to a list. In dense housing markets, shared pools and splash pads are common features of apartment complexes, HOAs, mobile home parks, and family-oriented residential communities. A rule built around those spaces can shrink lawful housing options even when a person is trying to live with family, maintain work, and comply with supervision.

For registrants and loved ones, the practical burden is uncertainty: whether a home is too close, whether a shared amenity changes the analysis, whether a probation condition becomes harder to satisfy, and whether ordinary movement inside a residential community becomes a technical-violation risk.

The policy also shows how registry restrictions tend to expand by geography rather than by individualized risk. When more ordinary places are classified as child-centered exclusion zones, compliance becomes less about responsible conduct and more about navigating an increasingly complicated map.

• Watch FDLE, DOC, probation/parole offices, and local law enforcement for implementation guidance before and after the July 1 effective date.
• Track how the “public swimming pool” definition is applied to apartments, condominiums, HOA communities, mobile home parks, and splash-pad facilities.
• Document housing displacement, family separation, supervision violations, or inconsistent local enforcement that may support future as-applied or facial challenges.

HB 5425 would prohibit people on the registry from working at businesses that primarily provide services to people under 18 and allow “unsupervised access” to minors during activities. Reporting identifies examples such as martial arts studios, dance studios, and summer camps.

HB 5426 would make corresponding criminal-code changes. Local reporting says violations could carry jail, fines, and higher penalties for multiple violations.

The April development is committee movement: the House Judiciary Committee advanced the bills to the full House, turning a categorical employment exclusion into an active legislative threat.

Employment is one of the central stabilizers for reentry, family support, treatment access, transportation, and compliance. A categorical employment ban can cut off work even where the job duties, workplace controls, offense history, time since offense, treatment progress, and individual risk profile would not support exclusion.

The phrase “businesses that primarily provide services to minors” also creates boundary questions. Workers, employers, and families may need to guess whether a business is covered, what counts as unsupervised access, and whether owners, contractors, seasonal workers, or support staff are treated the same way.

Michigan’s registry history makes the proposal especially important. Broad registry rules have already generated major constitutional litigation in the state, and new collateral bans risk repeating the pattern of status-based punishment dressed as administrative regulation.

• Watch for a full House vote, Senate referral, or substitute text narrowing the covered businesses, duties, workers, retroactivity, or penalties.
• Track whether lawmakers add individualized review, notice, safe-harbor language, or employer guidance to reduce compliance traps.
• Watch constitutional objections, especially given Michigan’s prior SORA litigation history.

In John Doe #2 et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice, the Central District of California entered judgment and a permanent injunction limiting federal SORNA enforcement against California residents.

The injunction bars federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 2250, SORNA, the 2021 DOJ SORNA rule, or related regulations unless DOJ first obtains California certification that the person was required to register under California law. For alleged failure to provide particular information, DOJ must also obtain certification that California law allowed the person to provide that information.

The court entered judgment for plaintiffs on one claim while entering judgment for defendants on others, making the relief significant but targeted rather than a complete invalidation of federal SORNA authority.

The ruling addresses a central registry trap: federal law treating someone as criminally exposed for failing to do something state law does not require, or will not allow, them to do. For people who earned California relief or were removed from state registration, that conflict can create fear of a federal felony even after state law says no registration duty remains.

For families, the practical relief is not abstract. It can mean less fear that a person who complied with California relief procedures will still face prosecution for non-registration, and more room to make housing, work, and family decisions without an impossible-compliance cloud.

The judgment does not resolve every SORNA conflict. Travel, relocation, different state rules, appeal posture, and future DOJ interpretation remain important.

• Watch whether DOJ appeals or seeks narrower interpretation of the injunction.
• Track whether similar challenges are filed in states where federal SORNA obligations conflict with state relief, removal, or refusal-to-register rules.
• Watch how the judgment is applied to travel, relocation, and people whose California relief status changes over time.

In Beagle v. People, 2026 CO 24, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the judgment below and rejected the argument that adult sexually violent predator designation and lifetime registration should be treated as punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

The ruling preserves Colorado’s adult SVP lifetime-registration framework against this constitutional challenge. Context reporting also noted concern from two justices that lawmakers should revisit the accuracy of risk assessment and concerns raised by the Sex Offender Management Board.

The procedural posture matters because the court did not decide that lifetime public registration is easy or harmless. It decided that, for this claim, the consequences remain outside Eighth Amendment punishment analysis.

This reinforces the civil-regulatory framing that has allowed severe registry consequences to avoid ordinary proportionality review. For people designated SVP, the practical reality can still be lifetime registration, public notification, housing and employment barriers, stigma, and family impact.

For families, the difference between “civil” and “punitive” can feel disconnected from lived experience. The label affects what claims courts will hear, what proof is required, and how much room remains for individualized review.

The ruling also narrows one litigation path in Colorado adult SVP cases, pushing reform energy toward legislation, state constitutional arguments, due process claims, individualized-risk standards, and risk-assessment accuracy.

• Watch whether Colorado lawmakers respond to concerns about SVP assessment accuracy and lifetime consequences.
• Track future challenges under state constitutional, due process, individualized-risk, or risk-assessment theories.
• Watch whether lower courts read the decision narrowly or broadly in later registry and community-notification cases.

SB 982 moved through final April action and was delivered to the governor. The bill replaces offense-list phrasing with a tier-based trigger for people adjudicated for Tier I, II, or III offenses in Missouri or another jurisdiction and requires classification into the highest applicable tier.

The truly agreed and finally passed text also addresses juveniles, people living, working, volunteering, or studying in Missouri who have registration duties elsewhere, treatment program certification for registration-period reductions, and removal procedures for people required to register because of out-of-state adjudications.

The House-side page and similar bill summaries for HB 3068 and HB 3049 help show the broader procedural package, but the final Senate bill text is the key source for the enacted-or-near-enacted posture.

Some clarification can help. People trying to understand tiering, removal, treatment-program reductions, and out-of-state obligations need rules that are knowable before they risk criminal consequences.

But clarity can cut in two directions. A clearer trigger for people who live, work, study, or volunteer in Missouri can also expand practical exposure for people with out-of-state convictions or registration histories, especially when family visits, temporary work, school, or volunteer activity crosses a threshold.

For registrants and families, the question is whether Missouri recognizes relief and removal from other jurisdictions fairly, or whether state-by-state variation turns travel, work, and family caregiving into a legal maze.

• Watch governor action, final effective-date language, and whether any signing message or implementation guidance narrows practical exposure.
• Track Missouri State Highway Patrol guidance on tier assignment, out-of-state registration triggers, removal petitions, and treatment-program certification.
• Watch how Missouri courts handle out-of-state relief, termination, expungement, or non-registration orders.

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice proposed amendments to 37 TAC §163.38, Sex Offender Supervision. The proposal defines “sex crime” and “sex offender” for supervision purposes and requires Community Supervision and Corrections Department policies covering registration, DNA collection, victim notification, treatment referral, treatment participation, field visits, collateral contacts, violation procedures, transfer information, and specialized caseload staffing.

The proposed rule states that specialized sex-offender caseloads may not exceed 60 people per caseload. It also directs CSOs to recommend conditions tailored to identified risk and to transmit information promptly when supervision transfers.

The proposal was filed with the Secretary of State on April 20, published in the May 1 Texas Register issue, and lists May 31, 2026 as the earliest possible adoption date. Written comments are due within 30 days of publication.

Supervision rules shape daily life more directly than many statutes. Contacts, home visits, field visits, collateral contacts, treatment requirements, violation recommendations, and transfer paperwork can affect work schedules, family privacy, housing stability, treatment access, and the risk of technical violations.

The proposed rule may improve consistency and clarity across local departments, but consistency is not automatically fairness. Formalizing high-contact practices without guardrails can increase family intrusion, employer disruption, and compliance pressure.

This item includes one of the month’s clearest action opportunities because public comments can ask the agency to build in individualized supervision, treatment access, transparent violation standards, and limits on unnecessary collateral contacts.

• Submit comments within 30 days of the May 1 Texas Register publication.
• Watch whether final language adds safeguards around individualized supervision, family collateral contacts, treatment access, transfer information, and violation recommendations.
• Track whether local CSCD policies publish clear contact standards and caseload monitoring after adoption.

HB 1387 was approved by the governor and chaptered as Chapter 311. The chapter text requires the Board of Education to automatically revoke a teaching license after receiving a record showing that the license holder was convicted of a felony and ordered to register under the Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry Act.

The rule applies to active licenses and to inactive licenses if the license was active when the offense occurred. The person is not entitled to a hearing before revocation.

Reinstatement is sharply limited: it is available only if the conviction is overturned on appeal and the Board finds reinstatement in the best interest of public schools.

This is a collateral consequence layered on top of conviction, sentence, and registry duty. The state is not merely regulating classroom access; it is making professional-license loss automatic for a defined group and removing individualized hearing access.

For registrants and families, the practical consequences are immediate and material: loss of career, income, professional identity, benefits, and future work options. Those consequences can ripple through housing, family support, treatment access, and reentry stability.

The no-hearing structure also matters when records are incomplete, incorrect, or legally complicated. Procedural protections are not just formalities; they are how people correct mistakes before losing a livelihood.

• Watch Board of Education guidance before the July 1 effective date.
• Track whether implementation creates notice, correction, and appeal pathways for erroneous records or legally changed convictions.
• Watch for due-process challenges or legislative proposals restoring limited hearing rights.