Background
Bruce Henry was convicted in federal court for possessing child pornography and served a prison sentence followed by supervised release. After his release, he married and had a son. Alabama law prohibits sex offenders from residing with minors, including their own children, if the offense involved a child. This law permanently prevents Henry from living with his son.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied a two-step substantive due process framework. First, it determined that the right of parents to live with their children is fundamental, deeply rooted in history and tradition, citing Supreme Court precedents such as Troxel v. Granville and Moore v. City of East Cleveland. Second, the court rejected Alabama’s argument that parents who commit misconduct lose this fundamental right. The court found no historical or legal basis for an exception to the fundamental right based on past state-defined misconduct. The court noted that while the government has a compelling interest in child safety, the law must be narrowly tailored, and the permanent, blanket ban on parents living with their children fails this requirement.
The dissent
What it means going forward
The decision invalidates the permanent prohibition in Alabama law that prevents sex offenders from living with their own children. The case is remanded to determine the appropriate relief consistent with the finding that the right is fundamental.