Bruce Henry v. Sheriff of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, et al.

Montgomery, Alabama civil rights lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued on a declaratory judgment theory challenging the Constitutionality Alabama Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Act (“Act”) in 2011, ALA. CODE § 15-
20A-11. Under it, no sex offender may, among other things, “reside
or conduct an overnight visit with a minor,” even if they are the
minor’s parent, if “[t]he adult sex offender has been convicted of
any sex offense involving a child, regardless of whether the adult
sex offender was related to or shared a residence with the child vic-
tim.” Id. § 15-20A-11(d)(4). This ban applies for the life of the par-
ent and prevents them from living with their current and future
children. Alabama offers no escape hatch from the Act for a person
who falls within its confines.
So it prevents Plaintiff Bruce Henry, who was convicted of
possessing images of child pornography and has since served his
sentence and had a child with his wife, from living with his son.
Henry challenged the Act as a violation of his fundamental right to
live with his children. Alabama argued that, as a convicted sex of-
fender, Henry had no such right.
As an en banc Court, we determined that Henry, like all par-
ents, enjoys a fundamental right to live with his children. That
does not mean that Alabama can’t regulate or even abrogate that
right. But to do so, the Act must survive strict scrutiny. That is,
Alabama must show that its legislation is narrowly tailored to fur-
ther its compelling interest in the safety of children. The Court remanded this case to us to determine whether the Act is narrowly tailored and survives strict scrutiny.

The Act is unconstitutional as applied to Henry.