Henry Case to be reheard En Banc by the 11th Circuit
In a bit of concerning news, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to rehear the Henry case En Banc.
In April, we reported a bit of good news out of the State of Alabama. A three judge panel of the 11th Circuit previously held that Alabama cannot completely prohibit convicted sex offenders from cohabitating with minors. Specifically, Bruce Henry, who married and had a child years after his offense was prohibited by an Alabama law from residing together or conducting overnight visits with his own child. The Court previously held that could not happen.
Yesterday, the Court announced that it will rehear the case en banc (which means a case will heard by all the judges of a court rather than just a smaller panel of judges). Certainly not a decision we welcome, but not necessarily bad news either. FAC will explore the opportunity to submit an Amicus Brief on behalf of Mr. Henry.
You can listen to the original oral argument here: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/system/files_force/oral_argument_recordings/24-10139_08132024.mp3
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sounds like dirty pool despite United States v. American-Foreign Steamship Corp., 363 U.S. 685 (1960). Sounds to me like one of the judges got his nose out of joint by it.
How good is justice when a single prejudiced judge can attempt to overturn a fair and square ruling simply because they don’t like it?
It reminds me of the recent case where the judge ruled that marking driver licenses violated the 1st amendment and then withheld his own judgement until he was sure that it would suit others (who ended up reversing him – WHEW!!)
Instead of upholding justice, they both seem to have gone shopping for a way out of an unpopular (though correct) ruling!
We need some judges with non-gelatinous spinal cords!
Pretty sad when you cannot live with your own child. I could understand if the child was a victim of their father, that would make a difference perhaps. That hurts the child as much as the registrant. How are we to move on in life when at every turn, we get a roadblock no matter how much progress we think we have gained, some law, rule or ordinance stirs up the pot with a setback.
Praying for the best outcome.
Henry won. We do not know yet why the Court is asking for a rehearing. FAC has reached out to Paul Dubbeling, attorney for Mr. Henry. We will update when we know more.
Because if it only “saves one child” it doesn’t matter what the other consequences are.
RM
I do not have statistics, but I know that kids who grow up without a father can have effects that are lifetime lasting. I still have my father, but he was in the military and most of the time he was off fighting someone else’s wars, and my mother had to raise me.
When has the registry ever saved a child? Where are all of the preventative measures taken to prevent a child from sexual abuse?
BWJ
The opposite of saved is lost. And we have lost many people on the registry. Some who were sick or ill and could not work because of the registry and they died. Some took their own lives, or some hater killed them because they were on the registry.
In closing, the registry loses more people than it saves. (My personal assessment/opinion, not a verified study)
And CHILDREN WILL BE LOST if the state prevails here.
The state is not even siding with the children here. Plaintiff is. By extension, we are.
At least it’s not the 5th circuit. Hopefully there are actual facts being presented to the panel instead of misinformation, disinformation, and speculation.