Introduction

Imagine being told that, despite having served your time and worked diligently to rebuild your life, you were permanently banned from living with your own child—all because of a law that gave you no opportunity to prove you could be a safe, loving parent. That’s precisely the reality Bruce Henry faced in Alabama, where one of the strictest residency laws for people convicted of certain offenses meant that some parents were forever barred from even staying under the same roof as their children.

Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed just how far these types of laws can go, ultimately declaring Alabama’s blanket prohibition unconstitutional—at least as it applied to Henry. The court’s decision not only highlights critical constitutional protections but also serves as a lesson in legislative overreach, the rights of parents and children, and the complex balance between public safety and individual liberty.

In this article, we’ll walk through the background of the case, break down the legal arguments and rulings, and ask: What happens next for families affected by these laws? Along the way, we’ll provide context and insights that matter for anyone interested in civil rights, criminal justice, or how laws shape family life in America.

Setting the Stage: A Law with No Escape Hatch

Alabama’s Code Section 15-20A-11(d)(4)—a statute notorious for its rigidity—prohibits adults convicted of certain offenses involving children (often called PFRs, or people forced to register) from residing with or having overnight visits with any minor, including their own children. The law makes no exceptions and offers no process for review or reconsideration, even if a person can prove that they pose no risk to their child.

The case at the center of this debate, Bruce Henry v. Sheriff of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, began after Henry—previously convicted in federal court for possessing illegal material—challenged this statute both “on its face” and in its application to him. His argument was fundamentally about constitutional rights: Did Alabama’s law violate his First Amendment right to intimate association and his Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection and due process?

Who Was Bruce Henry—and Was He a Good Plaintiff?

To understand the case, it’s important to know Bruce Henry’s background. In 2013, he pleaded guilty to one count of possession of explicit materials involving minors. The details were egregious—his offense involved hundreds of images focusing on young girls, including disturbing content.

After serving nearly five years in prison and completing sex offender treatment and counseling, Henry maintained gainful employment, became active in his church, volunteered, and continued therapy on his own initiative. He even married and fathered a son.

But as the legal team and podcast hosts discussed, he had also violated terms of his supervised release more than once by accessing prohibited materials—something that ordinarily would weaken his claim of rehabilitation. Nevertheless, the legal question remained: Should his mere conviction, with no avenue for review or redemption, automatically strip him of parental rights forever?

How the Law Worked—And Who It Hurt

Alabama’s statute didn’t merely prevent sleepovers. Its reach was astonishingly broad:

  • No overnight stays at all. If a person was convicted of a qualifying offense, they could not stay overnight with any minor—ever.
  • Not even your own child. The law applied with no exceptions for biological children, stepchildren, or even future children.
  • Sweeping timelines. The law defined “overnight” as any time in the same household between 10:30 PM and 6:00 AM.
  • Aggregate contact prohibited. Offenders could not spend more than four hours/day for three consecutive days, or more than ten days per month, in the same home as a minor.
  • Ambiguous thresholds. Even being “habitually and systematically present” could put a parent in violation.

As one host quipped, you need a scientific calculator just to track compliance. The toll on family unity and child development was more than hypothetical: Alabama families were being split, with kids growing up without parents who may not pose any real danger.

The Legal Issues at Stake

Constitutional Rights and Their Limits

Henry’s legal challenge pointed to two core constitutional principles:

  • The Fundamental Right to Parent: The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized the right of parents to make decisions about the care, custody, and control of their children—a principle dating back to Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) and echoed in countless later cases.
  • Due Process and Equal Protection: The Fourteenth Amendment requires laws to be fair, not arbitrary, and to treat similarly situated people equally.

Alabama’s defense? They argued that adults convicted of certain offenses have no fundamental right to live with their own children—an assertion that, if accepted, would set a dangerous precedent for permanently curtailing basic liberty after a criminal conviction.

The Court’s Reasoning: Overbreadth and Lack of Tailoring

The Eleventh Circuit didn’t buy Alabama’s arguments. The court emphasized these key findings:

  • No Individualized Review, No Justice: Most other states allow some form of review or hearing to determine if an individual poses a risk to their children. Alabama’s utter lack of such a mechanism rendered its law excessively broad and constitutionally infirm.
  • Proven Danger, Not Presumption: The court distinguished between laws that automatically strip rights on conviction (without regard for future circumstances or evidence) and those that allow the state to intervene only when there is proof of actual risk. Henry’s mere conviction could not justify a permanent ban.
  • Harm to Children and Families: The interests at stake went both ways. The law deprived children of the presence and care of a parent who might, after careful review, be found fit and loving.

Quoting from the court:

“In every other state, parents may present evidence that they are not a danger to their children. Section 15-20A-11(d)(4)’s utter novelty highlights its constitutional infirmity.”

Facial vs. As-Applied Challenges: What’s the Difference?

The case also turned on an important legal distinction:

  • Facial Challenge: The claimant argues the law is unconstitutional in every conceivable application.
  • As-Applied Challenge: The argument is that the law, as applied to the claimant’s unique facts, is unconstitutional.

The court concluded that, while the law was unconstitutional as applied to Henry—because his conviction alone didn’t prove he posed a danger—it might be constitutional in other, narrower circumstances (e.g., cases involving step-parents with direct histories of abuse). Because of this, the court declined to strike down the law on its face.

What Happens Next—and the “Roadmap” for Alabama

After vacating the district court’s broad injunction, the appellate court sent the case back for further proceedings, effectively giving Alabama two choices:

  1. Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court (a “cert petition”). While technically possible, legal experts doubt the Supreme Court would take up the case, especially given the thorough analysis by the Eleventh Circuit and the lack of a nationwide split on the issue.
  2. Revise the Law. The court essentially handed Alabama a blueprint: create a system that allows for individualized review, so that parents can demonstrate they do not pose a risk to their own children, thereby respecting due process and parental rights.

Most observers expect Alabama to adopt minimal changes rather than a full-scale overhaul—altering the law just enough to avoid further constitutional scrutiny, but without fundamentally shifting its tough-on-crime posture.

The Bigger Picture: How Does Alabama Compare?

Alabama’s approach stands at the most punitive end of the spectrum. While neighboring states like Tennessee have enacted similar laws, most other states—including those like Washington, Minnesota, and Colorado—provide better mechanisms for individualized review, balancing public safety and family unity.

As one commentator pointed out, it’s ironic for a state that claims to defend individual liberty against government overreach to enact some of the harshest personal restrictions in the nation.

Key Takeaways & Action Steps

  • Blanket bans can backfire—Laws that automatically and permanently remove parental rights without individualized review almost always run into constitutional problems.
  • Parental rights remain fundamental—Even after a criminal conviction, the state must respect due process and prove ongoing danger before severing the parent-child relationship.
  • Public safety and freedom require balance—Well-crafted laws should target actual threats, not impose one-size-fits-all penalties. The courts have opened the door for reform that is both tough and fair.

Next Steps for Interested Readers:

  • If you or a loved one is affected—Consult a knowledgeable civil rights or criminal defense attorney. Legal challenges may be possible where blanket prohibitions exist.
  • For policymakers and advocates—Study and replicate systems from jurisdictions that allow judicial review, balancing safety and constitutional rights.
  • Stay informed—Laws on sex offender registries and residency restrictions are changing. Follow updates from organizations, podcasts, and legal commentators who track legislative shifts and court rulings.

Conclusion

The Bruce Henry case stands as a critical reminder: even the best-intentioned laws—enacted in the name of protecting children—can cross constitutional lines when they abandon fairness and individual assessment. As the debate rages on between public safety and civil liberties, families across the nation are left hoping that lawmakers heed the court’s message: rights matter, and justice demands more than reflexive prohibition.

Whether Alabama will truly learn from this rebuke—or just make minimal tweaks—remains an open question. But for now, at least, one federal court has affirmed that parental rights and due process remain at the heart of American law, even for those society so easily casts aside.