United States v. Kebodeaux

Last updated
United States v. Kebodeaux
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued April 17, 2013
Decided June 24, 2013
Full case nameUnited States v. Kebodeaux
Docket no. 12-418
Citations570 U.S. 387 ( more )
133 S. Ct. 2496; 186 L. Ed. 2d 540; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4715
Case history
PriorKebodeaux was convicted of violating SORNA - W.D. Tex.; affirmed, 647 F.3d 137 (5th Cir. 2011); petition for rehearing en banc granted, 647 F.3d 605 (5th Cir. 2011); conviction overturned under the Wetterling Act, 687 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 2012); cert. granted, 568 U.S. 1119(2013).
SubsequentConviction affirmed on remand, 726 F.3d 737 (5th Cir. 2013).
Holding
The Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act (SORNA) was found to be constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause. The circuit court's decision was reversed and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityBreyer, joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan
ConcurrenceRoberts (in judgment)
ConcurrenceAlito (in judgment)
DissentScalia
DissentThomas, joined by Scalia (Parts I, II, and III–B)
Laws applied
Necessary and Proper Clause; United States v. Sharpnack 355 U.S. 286 (1958); Smith v. Doe 538 U.S. 84 (2003); Carr v. United States 560 U.S. 438 (2010); Reynolds v. United States No. 10-6549, 565 U.S. ___ (2012)

United States v. Kebodeaux, 570 U.S. 387 (2013), was a recent case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act (SORNA) was constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause. [1]

Contents

Background

The Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act (SORNA) is a federal law (42 U.S.C. ch. 151,subch. I) requiring federal sex offenders to register in the States where they reside, study, and/or work. [2]

The respondent, Anthony Kebodeaux, was convicted by a court-martial of a federal sex offense. After dishonorable discharge from the Air Force, Kebodeaux moved to Texas, where he registered with state authorities as a sex offender. When he moved within Texas, he failed to update his registration and was prosecuted under SORNA. The District Court convicted. He later appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which overturned his conviction under the Wetterling Act, as SORNA had not been passed at the time of his conviction. [2]

Arguments

Petitioner's argument (U.S.)

Congress has the power to subject a federal sex offender to criminal penalties for failing to register or update said registration ( 18 U.S.C.   § 2250(a)(2)(A) ). The appeals court's decision to reverse Kebodeaux's SORNA conviction was based on a mistake in applying pre-SORNA law. Contrary to the court's decision, Kebodeaux could be prosecuted under the Wetterling Act. [3] 18 U.S.C.   § 2250(a)(2)(A) is constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause as a "legitimate" consequence of the conviction under Smith v. Doe . [4]

Respondent's argument (Kebodeaux)

SORNA was an unlawful expansion of federal authority as it infringed on the states' police power. Kebodeaux's conviction violated limits set by United States v. Comstock . [5] Additionally, the Attorney General did not adopt a regulations applying SORNA to pre-enactment offenders until after Kebodeaux's SORNA-related sentence expired. [6]

Decision

Majority opinion

The majority opinion, written by Justice Breyer, ruled that SORNA was constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause. [7] Despite his release before SORNA's enactment, the release was unconditional, as opposed to what the Fifth Circuit said. Additionally, he was still subject to the Wetterling Act, which had similar requirements. [8] This was because the crime he committed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice had been designated by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to fall under the Wetterling Act. [9] Congress had the power under the Military Regulation and the Necessary and Proper Clauses to apply civil consequences to the UCMJ crime. [10]

Concurrences

Roberts

Chief Justice Roberts wrote a concurrence where he argued that the Court's opinion, with its discussion of the public safety concerns addressed by SORNA, could lead "incautious readers" to surmise the Court was endorsing a non-existent federal police power, citing United States v. Morrison . [11]

Alito

Justice Alito also wrote a concurrence. In it, he argued that the fact that sex offenses under the UCMJ are usually only tried by military tribunals, a convicted offender possibly might not register with the State in which he/she resides. [12]

Dissenting opinions

Scalia

Justice Scalia joined in Parts I, II, and III-B of Justice Thomas's dissent, but not Part III-A. He stated this was because he did not believe that what is necessary and proper to enforce a statute under an enumerated power is not necessary and proper to the execution of that power citing Gonzales v. Raich . Scalia stated that the Opinion did not declare that the Wetterling Act, on which they based their application to Kebodeaux, was necessary and proper, or that SORNA was designed to execute the preceding act. [13]

Thomas

Justice Thomas wrote the main dissent. He argued that SORNA was an unconstitutional usurpation of State police power. [14] This was because SORNA failed the legitimate use test Chief Justice John Marshall set forth in McCulloch v. Maryland . [15] Additionally, since Kebodeaux had completed his sentence, he was exempt from coverage under the Military Regulation Clause. [16] Thomas further argued that the decision in this case violated the precedent set by United States v. Comstock . [17]

Subsequent history

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction per curiam . [18]

Notes

  1. United States v. Kebodeaux, 570 U.S. 387 (2013).
  2. 1 2 Syllabus, p. 1
  3. Petitioner's brief, p.p. 14-15
  4. Petitioner's brief, p. 15
  5. Respondent's brief, p.p. 16-17
  6. Respondent's brief, p. 18
  7. Opinion, p. 2
  8. Opinion, p.p. 3-4
  9. Opinion, p. 4
  10. Opinion, p. 8
  11. Roberts, C.J., concurring in judgment, p.p. 3-4
  12. Alito, J., concurring in judgment, p. 2
  13. Scalia, J., dissenting
  14. Thomas, J., dissenting, p. 1
  15. Thomas, J., dissenting, p. 4
  16. Thomas, J., dissenting, p. 6
  17. Thomas, J., dissenting, p. 14
  18. United States v. Kebodeaux, 726F.3d737 ( 5th Cir. 2013).

Related Research Articles

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court on December 12, 2000, that settled a recount dispute in Florida's 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore.

Antonin Scalia United States Supreme Court justice

Antonin Gregory Scalia was an American jurist who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1986 until his death in 2016. He was described as the intellectual anchor for the originalist and textualist position in the Court's conservative wing. For catalyzing an originalist and textualist movement in American law, he has been described as one of the most influential jurists of the twentieth century, and one of the most important justices in the Supreme Court's history. Scalia was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2018 by President Donald Trump, and the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University was named in his honor.

Megans Law United States law requiring law enforcement authorities to make information available to the public regarding registered sex offenders

Megan's Law is the name for a federal law, and informal name for subsequent state laws, in the United States requiring law enforcement authorities to make information available to the public regarding registered sex offenders. Laws were created in response to the murder of Megan Kanka. Federal Megan's Law was enacted as a subsection of the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act of 1994, which merely required sex offenders to register with local law enforcement. Since only few states required registration prior to Megan's death, the state level legislation to bring states in compliance—with both the registration requirement of Jacob Wetterling Act and community notification required by federal Megan's Law—were crafted simultaneously and are often referred as "Megan's Laws" of individual states. Thus, federal Megan's Law refers to community notification, whereas state level "Megan's Law" may refer to both sex offender registration and community notification.

<i>Smith v. Doe</i> United States Supreme Court case

Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003), was a court case in the United States which questioned the constitutionality of the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act's retroactive requirements. Under the Act, any sex offender must register with the Department of Corrections or local law enforcement within one business day of entering the state. This information is forwarded to the Department of Public Safety, which maintains a public database. Fingerprints, social security number, anticipated change of address, and medical treatment after the offense are kept confidential. The offender's name, aliases, address, photograph, physical description, driver's license number, motor vehicle identification numbers, place of employment, date of birth, crime, date and place of conviction, and length and conditions of sentence are part of the public record, maintained on the Internet.

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

United States National Sex Offenders Public Registry

The Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Registry is a cooperative effort between U.S. state agencies that host public sex offender registries and the U.S. federal government. The registry is coordinated by the United States Department of Justice and operates a web site search tool allowing a user to submit a single query to obtain information about sex offenders throughout the United States.

Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act U.S. federal statute

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act is a federal statute that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on July 27, 2006. The Walsh Act organizes sex offenders into three tiers according to the crime committed, and mandates that Tier 3 offenders update their whereabouts every three months with lifetime registration requirements. Tier 2 offenders must update their whereabouts every six months with 25 years of registration, and Tier 1 offenders must update their whereabouts every year with 15 years of registration. Failure to register and update information is a felony under the law. States are required to publicly disclose information of Tier 2 and Tier 3 offenders, at minimum. It also contains civil commitment provisions for sexually dangerous people.

2009 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nineteen per curiam opinions during its 2009 term, which began on October 5, 2009, and concluded October 3, 2010.

United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that the federal government has authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause to require the civil commitment of individuals already in Federal custody. The practice, introduced by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, was upheld against a challenge that it fell outside the enumerated powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. The decision did not rule on any other aspect of the law's constitutionality, because only the particular issue of Congressional authority was properly before the Court.

Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if state law allows its use for medicinal purposes.

United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case concerning same-sex marriage. The Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned a challenge to a civil commitment statute for sexual predators in Washington state. The petitioner tried to differentiate this case from previous ones before the Supreme Court which upheld civil commitment statutes. The Court rejected the challenge to the law over the objection of a single Justice.

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. 291 (2014), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court concerning affirmative action and race- and sex-based discrimination in public university admissions. In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause does not prevent states from enacting bans on affirmative action in education.

Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844 (2014), follows up on the Supreme Court's 2011 case of the same name in which it had reversed the Third Circuit and concluded that both individuals and states can bring a Tenth Amendment challenge to federal law. The case was remanded to the Third Circuit, for a decision on the merits, which again ruled against Bond. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded again, ruling that the Chemical Warfare Act (CWA) did not reach Bond's actions and she could not be charged under that federal law.

Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1059 (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the President has the exclusive power to recognize foreign nations, and, therefore, Congress may not require the State Department to indicate in passports that Jerusalem is part of Israel.

Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), is a criminal case that came before the Supreme Court of the United States, which considered whether Puerto Rico and the federal government of the United States are separate sovereigns for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the US Constitution.

Nichols v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) does not require an individual to update his registration after departing a state.

Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the Sixth Amendment standard for reversing convictions due to ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining. The Court ruled that when a lawyer's ineffective assistance leads to the rejection of a plea agreement, a defendant is entitled to relief if the outcome of the plea process would have been different with competent advice. In such cases, the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires the trial judge to exercise discretion to determine an appropriate remedy.

Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), a statute defining certain "aggravated felonies" for immigration purposes, is unconstitutionally vague. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) classifies some categories of crimes as "aggravated felonies", and immigrants convicted of those crimes, including those legally present in the United States, are almost certain to be deported. Those categories include "crimes of violence", which are defined by the "elements clause" and the "residual clause". The Court struck down the "residual clause", which classified every felony that, "by its nature, involves a substantial risk" of "physical force against the person or property" as an aggravated felony.

Gundy v. United States, No. 17-6086, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d), part of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act ("SORNA"), does not violate the nondelegation doctrine. The section of the SORNA allows the Attorney General to "specify the applicability" of the mandatory registration requirements of "sex offenders convicted before the enactment of [SORNA]". Precedent is that it is only constitutional for Congress to delegate legislative power to the executive branch if it provides an "intelligible principle" as guidance. The outcome of the case could have greatly influenced the broad delegations of power Congress has made to the federal executive branch, but it did not.

References