⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Eleventh Circuit hears Kenny A. versus Georgia child welfare officials, about whether to end two decades of federal court supervision of foster care reforms. The case began in two thousand two, when children in state foster care in two Georgia counties sued over the protection and services they were receiving. The underlying concerns were practical: keeping children safe and ensuring that their medical and mental health needs were met. In two thousand five, the state and the children settled on a reform plan that the court approved as a consent decree. A consent decree is both an agreement and a court order, not simply a promise the state can withdraw at will. The plan was revised over the years and included monitored performance goals and conditions for ending supervision. Georgia later asked to terminate the decree, citing changes in legislation, agency operations, staffing, and help obtaining health care for foster children. The district judge acknowledged substantial improvements but refused to end supervision, pointing to remaining problems involving abuse investigations, stable placements, and health care. The state is appealing that refusal. The legal debate centers on Rule sixty, subsection b, paragraph five, which allows relief when continued application of a judgment is no longer equitable. The Supreme Court's Horne versus Flores decision calls for a flexible assessment of changed circumstances, including whether a lasting remedy has been achieved. Georgia will argue that the relevant question is whether it now complies with federal law, not whether it has fulfilled every negotiated requirement. The children's lawyer will emphasize the decree's continuing protective purposes and the need for a durable remedy. Listen for the difference between ending supervision now and sending the case back for the district judge to apply the proper test. Sending it back would not itself decide that the state has earned release from the decree.

Kenny A. v. Georgia Department of Human Resources (No. 25-13412) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued November 4, 2026.