Not yet final. On remand, the three-judge panel held on September 29, 2026 that the ban fails strict scrutiny as applied to Henry. Alabama may still seek further review. Binds federal courts in its circuit only. Persuasive, not binding, everywhere else.
What happened
Alabama Code § 15-20A-11(d) bars adult registrants from living with a minor, but lets parents and close relatives live with their own children — unless an exception applies. Subsection (d)(4) removes that allowance for anyone convicted of a sex offense involving a child, related or not, so for them the ban reaches their own children, for as long as they are registered. Henry challenged it. A three-judge panel ruled in April 2025, and the full Eleventh Circuit agreed to rehear the case.
What the court decided
By 8–5, in an opinion by Judge Rosenbaum, the en banc court held that the ban burdens the fundamental right of parents to live with their children, so strict scrutiny applies — the state must show the law is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest. Chief Judge W. Pryor dissented. On remand, the panel (Rosenbaum, Abudu, Wilson) held on September 29, 2026 that § 15-20A-11(d)(4) fails strict scrutiny as applied to Henry, a non-contact offender: it is overinclusive and underinclusive, and individualized hearings are a plausible less restrictive alternative.
Why it matters to the Registry
It is the strongest federal appeals ruling yet that a registry restriction can reach a fundamental family right, and it tests the limits of Connecticut DPS v. Doe, which left substantive due process open. Similar family-residence rules in other states can now be challenged on the same ground.
What it did not decide
The ruling is as applied to Henry only; the panel did not hold the provision unconstitutional on its face, and the universal injunction the district court entered had already been vacated. It did not address residency distance rules, which are a separate provision.
Developments
Panel opinion, 135 F.4th 1271.
En banc court holds strict scrutiny applies, 8–5; remanded to the panel.
Panel on remand: the ban fails strict scrutiny as applied to Henry; district court affirmed as applied.
Last verified against the sources above on October 15, 2026.
Legal Disclaimer
These are plain-language summaries of court decisions, written for general education. A ruling binds only the courts beneath the court that issued it, later decisions and new laws can change what it means, and how it applies to any one person depends on facts a summary cannot capture. Read the opinion itself, and talk to a lawyer licensed in your state before relying on any case. This page is not legal advice.