What do you think of the Oral Arguments in Henry?
This week, an en banc panel (the full court) of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reheard the Henry Case (where Alabama precludes registrants from living with minors… even their own children).
An audio recording of oral arguments was posted and can be heard here: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/24-10139_02102026.mp3
We encourage members to take the time to listen.
You do not need to be a lawyer. You do not need to understand every case citation or procedural nuance. What we’re interested in is your perspective. Based on tone, questioning, and overall demeanor: Did the judges seem skeptical of one side more than the other? Did one attorney appear more persuasive? Were there moments where the panel seemed particularly engaged — or particularly unconvinced? Did the questions suggest concern about constitutional limits, parental rights, or public safety claims?
Oral argument is often less about speeches and more about how the court tests the weaknesses in each side’s position. Sometimes skepticism toward one side can signal trouble for that side — but sometimes it means the court is simply probing before ruling the other way. Tone matters. Energy matters. The types of hypotheticals posed matter.
We want to hear from you.
If you listen, please share your thoughts in the comments. This case has enormous implications not just for families in our circuit, but for how far states can go in regulating where registrants may live and with whom they may reside. Your impressions — even as non-lawyers — are valuable and will help us plan future litigation.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I listened. I thought they gave scrutiny pretty evenly. They seemed engaged equally as well.
I was confused by all the hypotheticals that just went so far outside of the issue. I get, as much as I can as a lay person, they use these in distinguishing the underlying rights of this or that. But to compare it to child welfare services removing a child and that whole line of hypothetical went way off to me. Also if a person murders a child do they have the right to be with their 2nd child while things get figured out. I just don’t get that. This is a case where a person has already gone thru the legal system and met all their obligations of punishment and rehabilitation. How do you compare that to someone who just murdered one of their kids.
What was not brought up at all was the welfare of the child in that, the repercussions of not having your parent in your life. But I guess when it comes to “legalize” that is not a part of it. Doesn’t the child have a right to be with his parent who by all assessments is not a risk? Why is that not a part of the discussion? If they can ask all these hypotheticals then why can’t that be a hypothetical back. (in this case it would not be hypothetical).
I could not be a lawyer as I would just stand there and say wtf and get thrown out. 🙂 Thank you to all you lawyers who do get it and do help us.
At what point they will realize that even registrants have constitutional rights and rights to be parents. And I believe no one can strip those rights, but it seems lawmakers only want to make a statement, prepare some shoddy documents to look like they do something meaningful to their constituents base, roll that paper in a sticky solution and throw it to the wall in a dark room to see if sticks or sticks well. Regardless if that hurt families, or if separates the only breadwinner from their children, as long as it serves their Crusade Expedition against their perceived male olent “infidel registrant”. They just don’t care as long as it advances their Gestapo like agenda. So, how and when this can end?….who knows.
Thanks for the comment, but what did you think of the oral argument?
I listened to the entire argument. I don’t know the basis, or language of the law, but thought attorney made excellent argument that law is unconstitional. Never can predict how justices will rule based on line of questioning, but several seemed to tend toward agreement of it being unconstitional. Outcome will be interesting, not just the final ruling, but the entire analysis itself.
It’s insane to me that we’ve devolved so much as a society that parents have to fight for their RIGHT to raise their kids. I truly believe there is so much hatred in this world because government has pressed their thumb so heavy on normal every day citizens that naturally we rebel. You can only kick a dog so many times.
Well it is bad to take anyone’s right to parent away because of a registry.