Barton v. United States was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 2020. The case involved a challenge to the federal government’s ability to prosecute individuals for failing to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). The petitioner, Barton, argued that SORNA was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court held that SORNA was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court reasoned that SORNA was a rational means of regulating interstate commerce because it was designed to protect the public from sex offenders who may travel across state lines. The Court also noted that SORNA was a necessary means of regulating interstate commerce because it was designed to ensure that sex offenders were properly registered and tracked. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that SORNA was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce and that Barton’s challenge to SORNA was without merit. The Court’s decision reaffirmed the federal government’s ability to prosecute individuals for failing to register as a sex offender under SORNA.

In the Supreme Court case of Barton v. United States, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's interpretation of 18 U.S.C § 924(c)(1) was too broad and should be limited to situations where firearms are used as tools for committing crimes rather than simply being present during them. He noted that Congress had not intended such an expansive reading when it passed this law and suggested that if they wanted to criminalize mere possession of firearms then they would have done so explicitly in the statute itself or through other legislation. Furthermore, he argued that allowing prosecutors to use this provision against individuals who merely possess guns could lead to unjust outcomes since many people may carry weapons without any intention of using them unlawfully or even knowing about their presence at all times (e.g., someone else might put a gun in their car without telling them). Ultimately, Justice Scalia concluded by saying that while there is no doubt some overlap between possessing a firearm and using one for criminal purposes, these two activities should still remain distinct under the law because otherwise innocent people could end up facing serious penalties due solely to their proximity with illegal weapons