Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

CARR v. UNITED STATES

Docket No.: 08-1301
Certiorari Granted: Sep 30 2009
Argued: February 24, 2010
Decided: June 1, 2010

Topics:

Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), Administrative Procedure, Clean Water, Clean Water Act, Commerce Clause, SORNA, Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, Uniform Code of Military Justice, murder

PartyNames: Thomas Carr v. United States
Petitioner: Thomas Carr
Respondent: United States

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Citation: 551 F.3d 578

Thomas Carr
v.
United States
Background:

The President signed the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act ("SORNA") into law on July 27, 2006. Pub. L. 109-248 §§101-55, 120 Stat. 587. SORNA requires persons who are convicted of certain offenses to register with state and federal databases. See 42 U.S.C. § 16913(a). The law imposes criminal penalties of up to ten years of imprisonment on anyone who "is required to register * * * travels in interstate or foreign commerce * * * and knowingly fails to register or update a registration." 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). On February 28, 2007, the Attorney General retroactively applied SORNA's registration requirements to persons who were convicted before July 27, 2006. 72 Fed. Reg. 8896, codified at 28 C.F.R. § 72.3. The two questions presented are:

Question Presented:

1. Whether a person may be criminally prosecuted under § 2250(a) for failure to register when the defendant's underlying offense and travel in interstate commerce both predated SORNA's enactment. 2. Whether the Ex Post Facto Clause precludes prosecution under § 2250(a) of a person whose underlying offense and travel in interstate commerce both predated SORNA's enactment.

Question:

1) Can a person be prosecuted under the Sex Offender and Registration and Notification Act when the defendant's offense and interstate travel both predate the Act's enactment? 2) Does the ex post fact clause preclude prosecution under the Sex Offender and Registration and Notification Act when the defendant's offense and interstate travel both predate the Act's enactment?

CARR v. UNITED STATES
ORAL ARGUMENT

February 24, 2010

Holding: reversed and remanded
Vote: 6-3
Opinion By: Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)