[00:00] Introduction: Welcome to Registry Matters, an independent production. Our opinions are our own. We’re thankful for the support of our patrons. You make what we do here possible. Your involvement makes a difference every week. And always remember, F.Y.P.
[00:21] Andy: Hey there! Recording live from FYP Studios East and West. Transmitting across the internet. This is episode 381! Gosh, 381, Larry. Registry Matters. How are you tonight? A little bit toasty. Do you go outside and rotate? Are you on a rotisserie, or do you bake one side and then the other? It doesn’t take long to bake one side, because remember, we have no clouds here. We did talk about that. Can you imagine, Larry, that London has, what, was it 50 non-cloudy days in a year?
[00:56] Larry: And we have 300 of them. And so… Isn’t that quite a contrast? Yes, it’s inverted.
[01:02] Andy: Hey, so you were making a joke about being late. We were just getting rolling, and we were one or two minutes late. And about this costing however many dollars per minute. So I was having a conversation with my kid this morning. We were on a walk around the neighborhood. And I was trying to explain to him that radio stations and TV stations are controlled by the FCC because of the frequency spectrum thing. He had no idea what I was talking about.
[01:49] Larry: Has he ever listened to a radio in his life? Probably not.
[01:54] Andy: You know, only when he would get in somebody else’s car, I’m guessing. And then they turn on the radio. I don’t think he listens otherwise. On the rarest of occasions, Larry, I will turn on something on the radio, like NPR once or twice a year maybe. But never otherwise. I always have podcasts running in the car or I’m listening to Pandora.
[02:22] Larry: Well, that’s the way of the business. Most people don’t listen to the radio except in their cars. And that’s true. It’s shrinking.
[02:30] Andy: Very true. Hey, you know, press the like, subscribe, five-star review button, stars, notifications, and YouTube. So, hey, what are we doing tonight?
[02:44] Larry: We have this fabulous outcome from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that originated in the state of Alabama. It has to do with a parent’s right to raise their own children. Also, we have a story from New Mexico. A long-time attorney was arrested and charged for smuggling drugs into a correctional facility. And then the case took a rather strange turn.
[03:08] Andy: And I added to the end that Pennsylvania thing I told you about. But I’m just going to read it and it’ll take us 30 seconds.
[03:20] Announcer: The Supreme Court just told federal prosecutors you cannot drag a defendant across the country to your favorite courthouse. You try a person where the crime happened, period. Larry explains why that principle could matter for the registered person community down the road. Patrons hear every episode early and completely ad-free. Get ahead of the conversation at patreon.com slash registry matters.
[03:50] Andy: Cool. All right. Well, we have this story from your neck of the woods. It’s from KRMRQE News 13. You want to talk about the arrest of this prominent Albuquerque defense attorney who was accused because all people are innocent until proven guilty, right? Correct. He’s accused of trying to smuggle drugs into a New Mexico prison. What does this have to do with our issue? You know, FYP’s airtime is extremely valuable, right? It is. And we just lost three minutes of it because we were late starting. So the attorney’s name is Brian Pori. Is that the way I would pronounce it? Pori?
[04:36] Larry: I was going to say there is a connection. It’ll just take us a few minutes to get there. There is a connection to our issue. But yes, Pori is the way to pronounce it.
[04:43] Andy: All right. Well, the story says that what appeared to be a typical client visit to the Sibola County Correctional Center ended with the attorney in handcuffs outside of a prison in Milan, New Mexico on March 11th. Did I do Milan right? You did it correct. Okay. So an officer stopped 64-year-old Brian Pori. If you want an attorney present while we speak, you can do so. And Mr. Pori responded with, what if I am an attorney?
[05:40] Larry: Well, that response is kind of funny. But Mr. Pori is a long-time defense attorney. And KRQE has interviewed him over the years about a number of his high-profile cases. In our footage, he can be heard laughing as the Milan officer told him he had been accused of trying to bring Suboxone, which is apparently a prescription narcotic, into the Sibola County Correctional Facility. I don’t know what that does. Do you have any idea?
[06:10] Andy: Not the foggiest idea at all. I’ve never heard of it.
[06:33] Larry: But Pori repeatedly denied the accusation and told the officer that he was going back to his car after security told him he had too much money with him. And then the prison official had another comment.
[06:33] Guest 1: And
[06:48] Andy: Uh-oh. I think I broke it. Is it broken?
[06:52] Guest 2: He had an eyeglass case.
[06:55] Andy: Oh, my God. It’s trying to kill me tonight.
[06:58] Guest 2: He had a soft eyeglass case. They opened it up to see what was inside.
[07:05] Andy: When they opened the case, all those Suboxone pills fell out. That’s when Pori fled. He left his bag, laptop, and legal work behind.
[07:23] Larry: Pori was then arrested and taken back to prison as an inmate. I just think it’s outrageous.
[07:34] Introduction: I think it’s outrageous. I’m trying to come represent a client.
[07:38] Andy: And this is what they do to him. So, yeah, they showed him he’s getting locked up and all that. I heard
[07:43] Larry: the cuffs clicking. That sounds like a very familiar sound. Yes, it does. All
[07:49] Andy: Right. The story says, “While waiting to be processed, he explored two legal arguments with the officer. Saying his fingerprints won’t be found on the Suboxone packaging, and if there are no fingerprints on it and they don’t take it from my immediate possession and control, it’s a set up. Pori then told the officer that he was two weeks away from retirement. I think I’m pretty well respected among the judges in the U.S. District Court, and I’m going to tell everyone who can listen that I was falsely accused.” Do you think that’s a convincing argument for him to use?
[08:21] Larry: No, I don’t think it would be convincing if I were on the board of bar examiners. I’d be very distressed over how he handled that situation. But Pori was booked for bringing contraband onto prison grounds when asked by a nurse what day it is, which is part of their intake process. When asked, Pori responded, “It’s March 11th, 2026, a date which will live in infamy.” Now,
[08:47] Andy: I wonder where that came from. Really? He’s at a date that would live in infamy. That’s funny. Okay.
[08:54] Larry: K.R. Key would do. He spoke with Brian, Mr. Pori, on the phone, and Mr. Pori said he would never bring contraband into a prison. The state’s disciplinary board filed a petition asking the Supreme Court of our state to suspend Pori from practicing law.
[09:11] Andy: There was a follow-up story recently on KRQE, and it says investigators are now accusing Pori of working with inmates for years to get contraband pass cards. Months after that arrest, a newly released federal search warrant claims Pori sent a legal letter to inmate Reynaldo Vargas in December. Legal letters are considered confidential between attorneys and clients, but when Vargas opened the letter, investigators said a jail guard noticed stains or odd colors and an abnormal texture on the paper. The mail was confiscated and sent to the FBI, which tested it for Suboxone. Investigators cracked down on Pori by looking at phone calls between him and Vargas, then using search warrants to get text messages between Vargas’ friends. This led authorities to search Pori when he entered the prison in March.
[10:10] Larry: The story takes a twist here, which connects it to our issue. A June 9th story in the Oregon Mountain News states that because Pori provided legal representation for multiple clients held at the Seablood County Correctional Center, investigators used a filter team to avoid reviewing privileged attorney-client communications. I don’t exactly know what that means, but that’s what the story says. Federal investigators said FBI special agents later conducted a preliminary review of forensic images from Pori’s cell phone and laptop. Remember, he left his stuff behind when he fled. Agents identified several images depicting suspected CSAM material. And I hate using that term on a family program, but it’s the most polite way to say it.
[11:11] Andy: So they found naughty images on his computer?
[11:15] Larry: Yes. According to the FBI, the Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking Task Force confirmed that during preliminary review, the suspected CSAM depicted involved prepubescent boys and girls, including investigators believe their age to be 6 to 10 years old. The complaint says the images were found as telegram media files and cached files on Pori’s laptop. Investigators wrote that the telegram application was not a telegram application—it also was found on Pori’s cell phone and laptop. What are cached files? That’s kind of like cashing a check.
[12:04] Andy: You got me off guard with that one. No, cached files. We talked about this the other day. It’s when you go to a web page and there are images there. So to make the browser experience faster, it will save them in a cache. Like back in your ute, you would store your gold from your pirate ship. And you would store them in a cache, right? Do you remember those days? Yes, I do very well. Okay, so that’s a different kind of cache than caching a check. But they found stuff in telegram too. Dude, he’s doomed. So telegram, don’t you use telegram with your boss?
[12:39] Larry: We did, but we discontinued it for some reason.
[12:43] Andy: Okay, because that’s something I’ve heard—that they don’t have the best kind of security, but it’s a very popular app. And if you’re receiving text messages from people over Telegram that supposedly have better security, and those messages contain that kind of material, then you’re in trouble. The images would be saved on your phone, either because you saved them or just because they were there. They get cached somewhere on your device for quicker access.
[13:19] Larry: After the feds took over the investigation, the state charges related to contraband introduced into the correctional facility were dismissed in Siebel County Magistrate Court without prejudice on April 6th. According to the notice of dismissal filed in the state’s case, it was dismissed without prejudice, meaning they can bring these charges back later. But I don’t think they will because if the feds have him, that’ll be more than enough.
[13:50] Andy: The story says the federal case also prompted him. On May 14th, the New Mexico Supreme Court denied his petition for summary suspension but allowed Pori to continue practicing law only under supervision while disciplinary proceedings continued. The court ordered that Pori could meet with clients at a prison or jail only if an approved supervising attorney was present and he could not deliver personal items during these visits.
[14:20] Larry: After the feds took over and the CDC did their part, the Supreme Court denied the petition for summary suspension. The disciplinary counsel and Pori jointly asked the Supreme Court to revoke his supervised practice status and impose a summary suspension pending the outcome of the criminal case or disciplinary proceedings. As of now, Pori is being held at the Dona Ana County Detention Center pretrial under federal jurisdiction. According to a jail booking report, he was booked on June 1st and is still there without bond as of this evening when I checked. Now, for all you Trump supporters who get mad about your people being held in custody: This is common in the federal system. You get arrested on a federal charge, you’re very commonly detained even though there’s a presumption of innocence. So please focus your anger on the system, not just because it’s affecting your people.
[15:22] Andy: Well then, in your opinion, in your non-professional legal opinion, Uncle Larry, what do you see happening?
[15:30] Larry: Well, I hope that justice is done. There’s been rumors swirling for a long time. But if he’s guilty of these offenses, he has disgraced the legal profession and should be held accountable. But having said that, he’s also entitled to the presumption of innocence until he’s convicted or decides to enter a plea of guilty. But where it really bothers me is that I used to do professional visits as an attorney paralegal. And they afforded us a lot of leeway in terms of getting into facilities because we were supposedly screened and we’re going to respect the boundaries. If Mr. Pori was doing the things that have been alleged here, he is the one who causes the ones of us who will not even give an inmate a match. That’s where they start trying to tempt you. They’ll say, I just need a book of matches. And if they get you hooked on that, then they escalate from there. If he did these things, he is the reason why we go through such grief trying to get into a facility because you can’t trust anyone. An officer of the court with 30 plus years of practice should be trustworthy. But I’m afraid that with the feds on the case, they’ve probably got him. They took the case thinking that they could win it.
[16:56] Andy: Something we didn’t talk about here is that for the overwhelming majority of contraband that ends up in prisons, it comes from you people on the outside. It does not come from like visitation where they frickin’ cavity search you when you leave visitation. It comes from staff and attorneys bringing stuff in. And honestly, I’m just ignorant. I don’t really know of that being a law. One of the really common things is that attorneys bringing stuff in.
[17:24] Larry: Well, then how else does it get in other than the attorneys? The
[17:27] Andy: Staff. Oh, no. They wouldn’t hire anyone who would. I don’t even want to go into it. Staff are the ones that bring it in. I’m telling you.
[17:40] Larry: Well, it’s a sad day. He’s too old to be in this predicament. It’s a disgrace to a legal career if the disciplinary board disbars him. And also, he’s made it more difficult for people to do their jobs if he did these things. It’s really sad. Totally. Because we need to be able to get it out and see our clients with very little scrutiny. And people like this cause the correctional management to want to snoop where they don’t have any business. But if you can’t honor the rules, then they have to snoop.
[18:15] Andy: Well, it’s always that one person that ruins it for everybody. It’s why we can’t have nice things, Larry.
[18:21] Larry: Well, I never so much as provided a matchstick to anybody. And they tried and they tried. But no, we don’t bring anything in here. I think the most I brought was a magazine. And I would show the magazine, hey, is this permissible? And if it is, I’m going to give it to my client.
[18:38] Guest 1: A listener in Missouri fills out a required travel form. That form triggers a notification that gets him permanently banned from the country where his wife and children live. Fill it out. Lose your family. Refuse. Face prosecution. Larry and Andy dig into whether that counts as unconstitutional compelled speech. Registry Matters is a nonprofit. Your support funds the fight at patreon.com/slash registry matters.
[19:05] Andy: All right. Well, we’ve got an 11th Circuit en banc decision here to discuss. The case is Henry versus Sheriff of Tuscaloosa County.
[19:18] Larry: Yes, this is a win. And it’s a three-peat at that. This case was won at the trial court. Then it was decided favorably by the 11th Circuit with a three-judge panel a year or so back. And now it’s been decided again by the full court sitting en banc. We last discussed this case on episode 339 back in April of 2025.
[19:45] Andy: Almost exactly a year ago. So now I’ve been told before we even started that this one has you in a good mood, which is not very usual for you.
[19:59] Larry: I’m not usually happy and I’ll admit that. But for once, we’re walking through a case that actually reads like good news. Although it’s a little bit weakened by the full
[20:10] Andy: court, but it’s still good news. All right. So I’m going to hang on. I got to go over to my Google calendar and mark this date because it seldom happens that Larry is in a good mood. But we will move on while I do that.
[20:23] Larry: Well, I’m confident I can throttle all that optimism before we’re done. Aren’t you? I’m sure of that. Because that’s my job. But the very first line of the opinion by Judge Rosenbaum writing on behalf of the court is about a fundamental right of parents to live with their children. A right that the Supreme Court has described as perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests that the 14th Amendment secures. And that’s a quote from Troxell versus Granville. So right out of the gate, the court tells you it doesn’t even need to legislate or invent any new law because there’s precedent already. Well, tell us about Troxell versus Granville. That case was decided in 2000 and was touted as a landmark decision from the Supreme Court. It established that fit parents have a fundamental constitutional right under the 14th Amendment to make decisions regarding the care, custody, and control of their children. Imagine that. A parent having a right to be a part of their child’s life. Who would have ever
[21:34] Andy: thought of that? I can’t even imagine. All right. Well, before we get into the case, tell me about this dude. Who is Bruce Henry? You’ve got to always watch out for people with two first names, too, by the way.
[21:47] Larry: Mr. Henry pled guilty in 2013 to one count of possessing child pornography. And he had never been convicted of a sexual offense prior to that. At the time of his arrest in 2011, he possessed two videos and 348 photos of prepubescent and adolescent children. The first video depicted two adolescent girls which were downloaded from the Internet. Henry’s collection focused on girls of a very young age and included depictions of sadomasochism and bestiality.
[22:19] Andy: I’m sorry, can you describe what those are, Larry? Sorry, I think I’m going to pass on that. You’re going to pass too, okay?
[22:31] Larry: He received 70 months in prison and served it.
[22:34] Andy: Man, 70 months is not that long.
[22:37] Larry: He served about five years. He got it in March of 2018. And the opinion says he completed a qualified sex offender treatment program as well as individual and group counseling. He attended weekly Sex Addicts Anonymous meetings, maintained a steady job, attends church, and volunteers. This is a picture of a man who served his time and is doing everything the system asks. In August 2021, he and his wife had a son. But because of the Alabama Act, he cannot sleep in his own house with that child.
[23:20] Andy: So now, hold on if you would. I read further down and it says he had a couple of incidents while on supervised release. Was Henry a good vehicle for this? Was he a good candidate? Like plaintiff shopping, right? That’s a fair question.
[23:36] Larry: And I’m not going to hide it. Because the court didn’t hide it. The opinion tells us, quote, despite these restrictions, following supervised release, Henry in two instances accessed prawn. On July 19th, he admitted during a polygraphed interview that he had used an Amazon Fire Stick to view prawn. The forensic exam found no saved images. But he had viewed images with titles indicating they were of young or teenage females. So, yes, he was looking at prawn while under supervision.
[24:13] Andy: That doesn’t sound like a good candidate then. It doesn’t sound like a good strategy for success, so to speak. No, and it gets worse. He,
[24:23] Larry: quote, according to the court, actively sought out images of teen girls and children posed in sexual positions. Then in December 2019, he used his wife’s phone to search for prawn images. His probation officer filed a revoke petition, but the district court declined. Instead, they extended his supervised release from 60 months to 96 months, running through March of 2026. Since December 19th, he has had no violations. So the question is, do those two incidents defeat the fundamental right? According to the court, no. Legally, they’re beside the holding. But what I can see is they make him a weaker, unsympathetic vehicle, and of course they do. I absolutely will admit that if I could have found a better challenger, I would have.
[25:17] Andy: Well, let’s talk about the act itself. What does it actually do to him day to day?
[25:25] Larry: Well, it’s complicated. That’s where you have to read the mechanics out loud because you can’t make them up. The act prohibits a sex offender from residing or conducting an overnight visit with a minor unless the offender is the parent, grandparent, step-parent, sibling, or step-sibling of the minor. Sounds pretty good, right? But here’s the catch: he is the parent of the kid, so there’s your exemption. However, my favorite sentence in the court opinion says that those exemptions are substantially less inclusive than they appear at first glance. That’s because section 15-20A-11, subsection D’s exception itself has five exceptions. So there are five exceptions within the exception.
[26:17] Andy: Right, so there are exceptions. It’s like never driving alone, especially if you go by where minors are. So don’t ever do it, but then you can’t do it extra.
[26:29] Larry: Yes. So an exception with five exceptions stuffed inside it. You write a headline exemption for parents and then quietly claw it back so the relief is narrower than it looks. And exception number four catches Henry because his sex offense involving a child includes offenses involving child prong. So the parent exemption evaporates for him under the exceptions. You can’t make this stuff up. There’s an exception, but he doesn’t qualify because they’ve got five more exceptions within the exception.
[27:02] Andy: Sure. And what counts as residing or an overnight visit? Because those sound like they could mean almost anything. Oh, well, they do
[27:11] Larry: define it. And that’s the part that’ll make your head spin. Under Alabama law, you reside somewhere if you’re habitually or systematically present there. Now, I have no idea what that means. As a baseline, you reside there if you spend more than four hours a day on three or more consecutive days. Okay, I think I got that. And more than four hours a day on ten or more aggregate days in a month. Who in the heck could track that? How would you do that? An overnight visit happens between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 6 a.m., any presence at all in that window. So let me read you the court’s own summary because it’s brutal in plainness. Section 15-20-A, subsection D prevents Henry from being present in the same home as his son at any time between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 6 a.m. That’s one scenario. The second scenario is for more than four hours a day on three consecutive days. The third scenario is for more than four hours a day on ten or more aggregate days in a month. And the fourth scenario is in any other circumstances where he is habitually or systematically present in his son’s home. I can’t even figure this out. He can’t sleep in his own house between 10:30 and 6. Please, there’s time. Can you at
[28:46] Andy: At least admit this is funny? This isn’t funny.
[28:55] Andy: Is there any way out of it, any process to earn his way back?
[29:01] Larry: There’s no off-ramp ever for the rest of your life. And I’m not even editorializing; that’s the court’s interpretation. They say these restrictions are permanent. Alabama law affords no off-ramp to Henry or anyone else, containing no mechanism for offenders to challenge the prohibitions on residing or staying overnight with their own children. And that restriction persists for the rest of the offender’s life. The kicker is even if the offender lives a law-abiding life for decades after their conviction and later has a child, they cannot live with that minor child. Nor can they seek relief from the prohibition.
[29:36] Andy: And this thing calls itself child safety and it’s not punishment, of course. Of course it’s not punishment; it’s a civil regulatory scheme, right?
[29:41] Larry: Correct.
[29:45] Larry: The stated purpose, and I’ll wave at it, is not to punish sex offenders, but to protect the public and most importantly, promote child safety. A lifetime separation of a fit parent from his own newborn with no possible relief for anyone ever gets labeled protection. That wasn’t the hook here, but it’s the sting here for sure.
[30:09] Andy: So walk me through the procedural history. How did we even get to en banc? And can you remind us even what that means?
[30:17] Larry: Well, I think there are like a dozen or 18 judges on the 11th Circuit. So for expediency, you normally put a case before a three-judge panel. Why do we do that? Because you can never have a tie with a three-judge panel, right? Unless somebody votes kind of like, eh, maybe. A three-judge panel gets an appeal from a district court. If either party doesn’t like the decision, they can ask the full court to hear it en banc, which is extremely rare because if everyone could have one, it wouldn’t be special anymore. After the son was born, Henry sued under Section 1983 to stop or enjoin enforcement. Both sides moved for summary judgment, and the district court granted Henry’s motion. This was probably an okay case for summary judgment since it’s straightforward and based on the law. The district court declared the prohibition facially unconstitutional and universally enjoined its future enforcement.
[31:34] Andy: Just to go back one quick thing—Section 1983 is a constitutional challenge, right?
[31:39] Larry: Yes, it’s the section of U.S. Code 42, Section 1983. That’s where you sue for constitutional violations. Title 42, Section 1983. Yes, that’s correct. All right. Well, of course, Alabama appealed all of this. They did. And then a panel of the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part the district judge and reversed in part and vacated and remanded. The panel ruled that the prohibition as applied burdened Henry’s fundamental right to live with and raise his child, and it didn’t survive strict scrutiny. But on the facial ruling and the universal injunction, the panel said the district court had erred because it had gone too far and they vacated the total injunction. But basically, he had a good win with the three-judge panel.
[32:29] Andy: So then Alabama requested an en banc review.
[32:35] Larry: They did. Now, remember, I can’t help myself. This is the people who tell you when they run for office how they’re guarding your resources so carefully and they don’t believe in wasting a penny. Now, they’re already in this case. According to our paralegal, they’re already in the case for our side. It’s already above half a billion billable hours, which means that their side is already above that, probably a couple of times above that. So they’re already spending money and they’re so frugal. But the full court. They did request an en banc review, and it was granted. The panel opinion was vacated and the case was taken up on one question only: Does applying Alabama code section 15-2811D to bar Bruce Henry from residing or conducting overnight visits with his minor child violate his right to substantive due process?
[33:33] Andy: And then how does the court frame the legal test?
[33:39] Larry: Well, it’s two steps, two tracks. Step one is determining if this is a fundamental right. A right is considered fundamental if it is objectively deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition and implicit in the concept of our liberty. And I don’t think there will be any trouble passing that one. The Glucksberg scaffolding? Yes, where did you find that word at?
[34:03] Andy: Come on, man. That’s everyone. I guarantee everybody listening to the program right now knows what the Glucksberg scaffolding is. I don’t know that. I’m just saying, I’m retarded.
[34:14] Larry: I’ll explain, but I’m not going to make you sit through the whole doctrinal machinery. Step two, apply the proper level of scrutiny. If it’s a fundamental right, and here this part matters, the government action that encumbers the right is presumptively wrongful. And the government bears the burden to show that the action is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. That’s strict scrutiny. If it’s not fundamental, then it’s a rational basis, which the government almost always wins. So I think they’re going to be able to meet this test. But there’s another off ramp for the state that we’ll get back to.
[34:54] Andy: to. So then the court put this on the fundamental track. It did. And it did
[35:02] Larry: So emphatically. It relied on Meyer versus Novak, a case from Nebraska in 1923, which is a hundred-year-old precedent. The right to establish a home and bring up children; calling it perhaps the oldest of fundamental interests. A whole footnote of cases, but I won’t read them all. There’s a string citation there about how important it is to allow families to raise their children. Now remember, this is from the same part of the country that says a child needs a mommy and a daddy. You hear that all the time in the Bible Belt, right? Yes, I have heard that a time or two. Well, these are the same people who claim that’s what’s wrong with our country—that’s what’s wrong with child misbehavior—and yet they separate children by law from their mommies and daddies, which they say they need. Folks, please call your representatives and senators in Alabama and ask them to square this. I didn’t vote for them, but you can ask them: Why do you say that a child needs a mommy and a daddy? And then you make a law that says they can’t be with their mommy and daddy. I would like that to be explained.
[36:09] Andy: Now, Alabama’s argument was interesting. They didn’t say the state can regulate; they said these parents have no right at all.
[36:19] Larry: Well, that’s exactly what they said, and the court didn’t find that very compelling. Alabama also argued that entire classes of parents have no fundamental rights at all because they committed state-defined misconduct years before their children were even born. And the court answered, quote, “Parents, even those who have committed state-defined misconduct, enjoy the fundamental right to live with their children.” So, Bruce Henry, who was convicted of possessing images of child pornography and has served his sentence, now has a fundamental right to be with his son. Now, this is in the Bible Belt, where people claim that they forgive people. So I’m fit to be tied: What is wrong with you people in the Bible Belt?
[37:05] Andy: Now, does this mean we won? Is that what we’re saying here, we won? Well, not really.
[37:13] Larry: Exactly. This is where I get to bring people down. This is where I earn my keep. Read the very next sentence with me. “This does not mean Alabama cannot regulate or even abrogate that right. But to do so, Alabama must show that the legislation is narrowly tailored to further its compelling interest in the safety of children.” And then the line that tells you the whole game: “We explain why Supreme Court precedent, our history and tradition, and the fundamental nature of the right of a parent to live with their children all require us to conclude that Henry enjoys a fundamental right to live with his children. Then we remand to the panel to take further actions consistent with this opinion.” Which is basically opening the door for them to say, “Well, here’s why he should be deprived of that fundamental right.”
[38:07] Andy: Now, what they did, though, is they recognized the right and then handed it off? They
[38:12] Larry: did because they remanded it because this fight isn’t over. It was just moved back to the lower courts. The court says, flat out, the fact that parents have a fundamental right to live with their children does not resolve this appeal because Alabama has articulated a compelling reason for its law, the safety of children. So we remand this case to the panel to consider the best way to proceed. Recognizing the right and winning the case are two different animals. What they won today is the right and the burden shift. The government now carries the burden and must narrowly tailor. The burden shift is the real prize that we won. But it only matters if the court actually makes the state meet it. And this hasn’t happened yet.
[38:56] Andy: And the magic words are still on the table?
[39:01] Larry: Yes, child safety, like I’ve said for eight years now, the government can do almost anything if it narrowly tailors it. There are people who should be deprived of children. But the funny thing is we already have processes. Most states, if not all, have a child protective services department or something similarly named. And they already have a mechanism to deprive this parent of their contact with their children if they have enough evidence. It already exists. But the magic word child safety is still sitting on the table. That’s the exact phrase courts use to justify anything. And it’s unresolved. So we go back to
[39:40] Andy: court. What do you expect to happen now that it’s been remanded?
[39:48] Larry: The panel will likely apply strict scrutiny and hold the categorical no-off-ramp ban is not narrowly tailored. But I’m cautioning you, Alabama, based on their track record, we’ve got all this fight now. It’s going to fight the tailoring point. And the case is not over. Here’s my other prediction: watch what Alabama does on remand. Both legally and legislatively in Montgomery, a well-counseled legislature probably won’t consider repealing the ban outright. They will likely just weaken the categorical bar into a discretionary one. That’s much harder to do. And they’ll give a sliver of people an off-ramp and say, hey, it doesn’t apply to everybody. And they’ll make us keep litigating.
[40:34] Andy: But then there was also a dissent in the case as well.
[40:37] Larry: There was. I read carefully Judge Pryor, who’s notoriously considered to be an extreme right-winger, filed a dissent, joined by Newsom, Branch, and Lagoa, and partially joined by Luck. You probably wouldn’t be lucky to have Luck as your judge, I’m guessing. The dissent is the roadmap that the state will cite on any petition for cert to the U.S. Supreme Court. And I’ll note this is exactly the kind of split that the Supreme Court loves to take up. This is a well-developed case, more or less. And by the time that it gets back, it will have been developed about the narrow tailoring. This is the kind of thing that the Supreme Court would likely dive into and could take up.
[41:31] Andy: always big picture. Does this help anybody besides Chmiedewski? I forget who he is here. Henry? Does this help anybody but him?
[41:42] Larry: No. The panel already vacated the universal injunction, so this is as applied relief to Henry. It benefits only the named plaintiff. Everybody else has to bring their own case or ride the precedent when we finally have one. This binds three states if it holds. If we finally win it and they don’t take it to the Supreme Court, this only binds Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. But the rest of you can cite this as being persuasive if you have stupid legislatures that enact this kind of thing. You can cite this as being persuasive, but don’t get giddy outside the Eleventh Circuit because this has no power outside the Eleventh Circuit.
[42:25] Andy: Would this apply to people on supervision or is this only those past that point? Because that was one of my conditions.
[42:31] Larry: I think that the people under supervision are going to have a tougher challenge. Not to say they don’t have fundamental rights, but most courts look at you with less sympathy because you’re still being punished. It’s just reality.
[42:47] Andy: So what’s the bottom line for this for us?
[42:50] Larry: The bottom line is it’s a mixed result, and I mean that precisely. I’m genuinely pleased that the en banc Eleventh Circuit looked at the ban that keeps a father out of his own home and said it burdens fundamental parental rights and demanded strict scrutiny. That’s good, and that’s real, and it’s a good thing. But I won’t call it a real win because they did not strike the act down. They recognized and basically they punted it back to give Alabama a chance to justify the restriction. And believe me, they will. Because Governor Ivey signed this thing with a lot of pride, and she’s going to say we need to keep our children safe down here in Alabama.
[43:33] Andy: You got to learn to say “children’s.” Mm-hmm. What do you think of the government of Alabama at this point? Has your opinion changed since we discussed this on episode 339?
[43:44] Announcer: by the strangest collection of misfits, Looney Tunes, since the advent of the Third Reich.
[43:51] Larry: So no, my opinion has not changed very much. The Gipper said it best.
[44:01] Guest 3: What happens when you call your parole officer’s supervisor to complain? Larry lays out exactly why that move can backfire spectacularly, especially if you are a frequent flyer in the system. It is the kind of frank, nobody else will say it guidance that defines this show. At higher patron levels, you can even get one on one time with Larry himself. Start at patreon.com/slash registry matters.
[44:29] Andy: All right. Well, then we have some good news out of the state of Pennsylvania. I’m just going to read the article and we can kind of beat it around for a couple of minutes. So, over the past year, Parcell has run a campaign to hold the Pennsylvania State Police accountable to a law that Governor Wolf signed in 2018. The law required the Pennsylvania State Police to implement a telephonic verification system for Pennsylvania’s Megan’s Law registrants in tiers two and three. Those individuals are required to verify their information two to four times a year. After months of getting the runaround from PSP, we escalated to the governor’s office and the House Judiciary Committee. When that didn’t work, we escalated further by calling on state representatives Emily Kincaid, a Democrat from Allegheny County, and John Schlegel, who is a Republican from Lebanon. Like all the way in the Middle East, Larry? Lebanon? I’m not sure. So we asked those two legislators to intervene. During the PSP budget hearing on March 12th, 2026, Representative Kincaid directly called out the acting commissioner for the agency’s failure to implement the required system. Like his staff had done in the past year, he was unable to answer the question. In writing, Representative Schlegel followed up with PSP and learned that over the past eight years, only 520 eligible registrants had been approved for telephone registration out of more than 8,000 potentially eligible individuals. We then launched a messaging campaign to the PA General Assembly. If the PSP cannot implement a simple telephone verification system in eight years, why should they receive more funding in the forthcoming budget cycle? I think that particular quote would resonate with you, Larry.
[45:19] Andy:
[46:17] Larry: Well, I like it. Actually, I like all of this because we have a similar law here that’s been ignored for more than eight years. So I might just have to confer with those people in parcel and figure out how to do what they did and maybe engage them to do the same thing here. But yes, this is good stuff. I don’t think they’re going to cut any budgeting in the budgeting cycle. But it is funny to kick this around for sure because the law says to create this system, and they haven’t done it for eight years. They haven’t done it since 2013. So we’re 13 years out and haven’t done it here.
[46:51] Andy: It just doesn’t sound like it’s that hard. You stand up a phone number and you put a person on the other end, and they can look up the person. They can click the checkboxes and done. You’re missing the point, though.
[47:03] Larry: They don’t want you to be in compliance. They’re looking for a mechanism to arrest people. You’re missing the whole point. This is not about compliance. It’s about arrests.
[47:13] Andy: But we, the “we” people, got arrested for breaking the law. They’re breaking a law, and they’re not being held accountable for breaking it.
[47:21] Larry: Well, they are being held accountable now. They didn’t have any idea until this was brought to their attention. But Representative Kincaid and Representative Schlegel are holding them accountable, thankfully.
[47:30] Andy: So I have a quick little clip—they put it on their webpage. Here’s what a call looks like. And I hope this plays.
[47:40] Guest 4: State Police, Megan Zoll.
[47:42] Andy: Hi, this is Andy.
[47:42] Announcer: I’m calling to register on a recorded line.
[47:46] Guest 4: Do you have a SID number? And do you have any changes that you’re making? I don’t. Okay, good. Just making sure. Okay. And then can you please go ahead with the pin number? Okay. So I’m going to go ahead and click verify. Okay. You have been verified. You are successful, and everything is complete. Like, how complicated is that?
[48:10] Larry: It’s not complicated, but again, they
[48:13] Andy: don’t want to do it. We have a listener from Pennsylvania. He says, because the police use in-person updates to do interrogations.
[48:25] Larry: That I have heard in other jurisdictions. I have heard that, yes. All right.
[48:31] Andy: Well, that sounds pretty cool, though. That sounds like good news for the potentially 8,000 people that are eligible for it.
[48:37] Larry: Well, it’s not funny that it took them eight years. It’s sad. They only had 520 who were eligible.
[48:47] Andy: It shouldn’t be like this. You shouldn’t have to be “approved.” If you’re tier two or tier three, you should just dial the digits and it’s done.
[48:56] Larry: That’s correct. But when they talk about needing more money, a good question is why wouldn’t you need less if people could handle things online and on the phone? Wouldn’t that free up labor resources? Do you really need more money? It’s political gamesmanship. We need more money. Nobody wants to make their workload smaller because the more complicated they can make it, the easier it is to arrest people for technical violations.
[49:20] Andy: I’m going to talk about some technical computer stuff now. I could build an N8N workflow using AI by the end of tomorrow and solve this issue. Why don’t you offer that to PSP? No, I’m good there. Anything else before we head out, Larry?
[49:39] Larry: We have a new patron to recognize.
[49:41] Andy: Oh, we do. Gosh darn it. I totally forgot. Can you call it out? I could go look it up if you need me to. Well, if you can do some monologue while I’m looking it up. No, it’s Joseph. Joseph K. has become a patron. Thank you very much, Joe or Joseph. And I did say hi to him. He showed up on the Discord server just shortly after he became a patron. So thank you very much.
[50:09] Larry: Hey, Andy, do you still take calls from people that are patrons?
[50:13] Andy: I do indeed. If they’re at the right level. But I do have one strange request. You’ve got to answer your phone. I’m sorry. Why would anybody not answer their phone?
[50:18] Andy: Why wouldn’t you want to answer your phone?
[50:21] Larry: I have to build up to having the bandwidth of time and psychologically prepared. When I call, if I can’t get through, then you lost your chance. So if you request a callback, I’m happy to do it. Just make yourself available.
[50:37] Andy: available. Fantastic. Well, please head over to registrymatters.co to find show notes and links everywhere you need to go. Registrymatterscast at gmail.com. Old-fashioned voicemail messages at 747-227-4477. And as we were just discussing, patreon.com slash registrymatters. And you, too, can become a patron just like Joseph did. And it is so very much appreciated. Look, we’re here every week-ish. You know, except for when Larry’s got, I don’t know, he’s got to wash his hair or has a headache that night and can’t go out on a date with me. We’re independent content creators doing this mostly to help the PFR community. And I know Sandy’s in there. Every time we say PFR, she’s screaming at us. But that is why we are here. It’s not by any chance that we’re going to get, like, become millionaires. We’re not Joe Rogan getting signed by Spotify for 100 million bucks. We just do this to try to help the people out because there’s a massive lack of information.
[51:36] Larry: You know? Indeed. And we do get a small amount of money out of it. But it’s so small compared to the effort that goes into it. And I’m grateful that we have the generous patrons. But we need a whole lot more of them. Should be.
[51:47] Andy: There are quite a few of us, though. All right. Well, stay out of trouble. Stay cool. You know, hydrate and rotate. Definitely got to rotate to keep the cooking even there, Larry. We wouldn’t want you oddly cooked. Indeed. Have a good night, and I will talk to you soon. Good night.
[52:08] Introduction: You’ve been listening to FYP.