Major Washington firm signs on to represent Henry in rehearing before the 11th Circuit
Here’s some exciting news to share. Elaine Goldenberg, a partner with the firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP has filed a Notice of Appearance in Bruce Henry’s case. Henry is the dad who is challenging an Alabama law that prohibits a person forced to register from living or having overnight visits with a minor, even if it’s his or her own child!!!
This is the case where the District Court struck down the law, the Appellate Court (the 11th Circuit) affirmed the decision finding the law unconstitutional, and then (probably after a lot of pressure from some influential people) the Court, of it’s own volition, decided to re-hear the case en banc!
The outcome of this case can be devastating. Since 11th Circuit decisions also create binding precedent in Florida, an unfavorable decision from the 11th would effectively be an open invitation to Florida lawmakers to pass a law preventing someone on the registry here from living with their own children. A concept too unthinkable to even imagine.
At least Henry is getting top notch representation. Attorney Goldenberg, aside from being a Harvard graduate (cum laude – both undergrad and law school), has argued 12 cases in the U.S. Supreme Court. Before returning to private practice, she served for five years as an Assistant to the Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice and has clerked for several justices. One could not wish for a more capable attorney in this critically important case! And, after Michael Kimberly took on representation of the registrant in the Clements case, it’s great to see top lawyers are taking an interest in these cases.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I feel this is happening due to overreach by legislators. Laws like these are passed to appear tough on crime to get votes and the more extreme laws like this one are, if we win, hopefully a warning that regardless of how unpopular we currently are, laws that are more punitive in nature will not be a allowed.
I feel getting a lawyer of this caliber is a major milestone in our fight and today I am more hopeful than before.
We could definitely use some top law expertise.
What are the possibilities that F.A.C might have a case afterwards for her? I know, I know, it is expensive, but I know F.A.C keeps a list of potential lawyers who are top notch, especially issues they affect all of us.
I do not have any connection this case, because I live alone and it is just me. But the one about moving if you live near water, just boggles the mind. It would be sad if one of us assaulted the water because we were not hurting anything or anyone else other than those who are butt-hurt because we live on “Their” street.
Litigation will be unnecessary if we prevent the bill from becoming law in the first place.
FAC
And that would be the hoped for outcome anyway.
But we all know sometimes these crazy-looney laws get passed through with tradeoffs for bills someone else wants to propose. Sometimes palm greasing and promises for this and that if you “Just pass my bill”.
Indeed this case is very important. Not only because is extremely rare for a court to grant an “en banc” re-hearing, but also because it increases the chances for the first Appellate Court decision to be overturned. However, the opposing party must be incredibly well persuasive in order for such decision to be overturned. I am confident the re-hearing will side with the Appellate court. And, as it was mentioned in the article, if the plaintiff’s lawyer is that good, then, I am not worried at all, I think it is going to be ok…just a small bump in the road.
The problem is the court, as written here (and seen below), decided upon itself to re-hear en banc, not with an appeal by either side. Why? Why did they decide to do a re-hearing when it was polled by one of the judges within? Why did one of the judges poll their fellow judges with this request?
We the people need to understand this action in great detail. SCOTUS works enough on their own in mystery by not providing reasons why they decide things when they should since they work for the people (who pay them)…the people do not need the lower courts to follow suit. There is too much political wrangling behind scenes the people don’t know of that transparency needs to be even greater for the legal system (and no, it is not a justice since that is subjective).
Bruce Henry v. Attorney General of the State of Alabama, et al. Case #24-10139 (Poll granted of en banc hearing request) (https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/enbanc_cases/202110139.1.pdf)
Fingers crossed for Bruce Henry!