Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant, v. Robert D. POWERS, Plaintiff-Appellee.
Defendant Robert D. Powers was indicted for failing to register as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. § 16913, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). Powers moved to dismiss the indictment, and, after hearing argument, the district court declared 18 U.S.C. § 2250 facially unconstitutional, dismissed the indictment, and ordered Powers released. United States v. Powers, 544 F.Supp.2d 1331, 1336 (M.D.Fla.2008). On appeal, the Government argues the district court erred in holding 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) facially unconstitutional as an invalid exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause power.
In United States v. Ambert, 561 F.3d 1202, No. 08-13139, 2009 WL 564677 (11th Cir. March 6, 2009), this Court held both the registration provisions set forth at 42 U.S.C. § 16913 and the failure to register offense set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) do not violate the Commerce Clause. Id. at *8-9, 1211-12. We concluded § 2250 falls within Congress's power to regulate “both the use of channels of interstate commerce and the instrumentalities of interstate commerce.” Id. at *8, 1211. We also concluded “the requirement that sex offenders register under § 16913 is necessary to track those offenders who move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.” Id. at *10, 1212.
Ambert controls here. The district court erred in dismissing the indictment against Powers on the ground that SORNA exceeded Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause. Accordingly, we vacate the order of the district court and remand for reinstatement of the indictment.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
PER CURIAM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 08-12764
Decided: March 26, 2009
Court: United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)