An en banc federal appeals court in Atlanta has sharply curtailed Alabama’s blanket rule that bars adults convicted of sex offenses involving children from living with minors, ruling that the state cannot apply a total residential ban to all parents without some form of individualized review. The court treated a parent’s right to live with their children as a fundamental one, even when the parent has a prior child-pornography conviction, and sent the case back to the lower court to test whether the law is narrowly tailored to protect children. The split decision sets up a new phase that could push lawmakers or judges to build in case-by-case determinations instead of a one-size-fits-all lifetime bar.
Writing for the majority, Judge Robin Rosenbaum said the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to “establish a home and bring up children,” and faulted Alabama’s statute for offering no “escape hatch” for parents who can show they are not dangerous, a flaw that triggers heightened scrutiny. According to the Eleventh Circuit, the court concluded that the state’s absolute bar could deprive some children of fit parents and some parents of constitutional rights in ways the statute does not justify.
The challenge was brought by Bruce Henry, who pleaded guilty in 2013 to possessing child pornography and later married and had a son. As summarized by FindLaw, Henry served prison time, completed treatment and counseling after his release, and had his supervised release extended through March 2026 following earlier probation violations. Under Alabama’s current rules, he has been barred from living with his child.
What Alabama's Law Does
Alabama’s Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Act (ASORCNA) includes a provision that states, without exception, that “no adult sex offender shall reside or conduct an overnight visit with a minor” when the offender was convicted of an offense involving a child. The district court’s memorandum details how the statute defines an “overnight visit” as any presence between 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., and how “reside” can be triggered by spending more than four hours a day on multiple days, which means ordinary family routines can violate the rule. Those statutory details appear in the trial court record and analysis, and the district court had already struck §15‑20A‑11(d)(4) as unconstitutional in part before the appeal.
How The Ruling Moves The Case
The en banc panel did not simply leave the earlier total invalidation in place. Instead, the court vacated the district court’s blanket injunction in part and remanded the dispute for further proceedings to decide whether, in practice, Alabama can satisfy the demanding strict-scrutiny standard. As reported by Tampa Free Press, the Eleventh Circuit has put the case on a strict-scrutiny track that requires Alabama to prove its total residential ban is narrowly tailored to the compelling interest of protecting children.
Chief Judge William Pryor penned a forceful dissent, joined by three other judges, arguing the majority downplayed Henry’s criminal history and that the ruling could ultimately force individualized hearings even for the most dangerous offenders. Courthouse News Service reports that Pryor warned the majority’s approach risks shifting regulatory power away from elected state legislatures and could complicate enforcement against parents who pose clear dangers to children.
What’s Next For Families And State Law
Because the court suggested that a workable alternative would be to give parents a meaningful opportunity to prove they are fit, the decision effectively lays out two likely paths. Alabama could amend the statute to add an individualized review process, or the remanded proceedings could produce a narrower enforcement regime through judicial orders. Coverage and legal summaries note that other courts and states have relied on case-by-case procedures rather than automatic lifetime bans, and advocates on both sides are expected to debate the practical tradeoffs as the litigation continues. FindLaw and court filings track that procedural posture.
Legal Implications
The court’s framing means Alabama now faces strict scrutiny, the toughest constitutional test, which requires the government to show a compelling interest and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve it. The Legal Information Institute describes strict scrutiny as demanding that a law be the least restrictive means to accomplish a necessary government objective. Cornell’s LII notes that laws that fail this test are often struck down or significantly revised, so the remand will turn on whether Alabama can show there is no less restrictive way to protect children than the statute’s blanket approach.
For now, the case returns to the next judicial panel or lower court stages for the narrow-tailoring inquiry, and state officials have not offered an immediate public response. As Courthouse News reported, representatives of the attorney general’s office did not immediately return requests for comment after the ruling.
