Term: 2015
Docket: 15-5238
Nichols v. United States
- Pro
15-5238 NICHOLS V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW: 775 F.3d 1225 LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. CERT. GRANTED 11/6/2015 QUESTION PRESENTED: Two men lived on opposite sides of the Missouri River in the Kansas City Metropolitan area, one in Missouri within the Eighth Circuit, the other in Kansas within the Tenth Circuit. Both men were convicted of sex offenses before the enactment of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act ("SORNA''), but were required to register under SORNA. Both men traveled from their homes to the Kansas City International Airport, flew to the same foreign country to reside, and thereafter did not update their registrations in the jurisdictions they had left. On these facts, the Eighth Circuit ruled in United States v. Lunsford, 725 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2013), that the failure to update a registration does not violate SORNA. The Tenth Circuit came to the opposite conclusion in Petitioner's case, on the basis of its earlier decision in United States v. Murphy, 664 F.3d 798 (10th Cir. 2011). This case presents the following questions: I. Whether 42 U.S.C. § 16913(a) requires a sex offender who resides in a foreign country to update his registration in the jurisdiction where he formerly resided, a question that divides the courts of appeals? II. Whether 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d) is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to the Executive Branch because it grants the Attorney General unguided discretion to determine who to prosecute for violations of SORNA, a question that caused disagreement within the Tenth Circuit below? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 14-3041
In Nichols v. United States (2015), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on a case involving sex offender registration requirements under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). The petitioner, Lester Ray Nichols, was convicted in Kansas for traveling to engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor. After serving his sentence, he moved to the Philippines without updating his sex offender registration information as required by SORNA. He was subsequently arrested and charged with failing to update his registry information within three business days of changing residences. Nichols argued that since Kansas did not have jurisdiction over him once he left for another country, he could not be held liable for failure to register there. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and upheld Nichol's conviction by an 8-0 vote stating that SORNA requires registered sex offenders moving abroad must notify their last place of residence within three business days before departure so officials can inform appropriate authorities where they are going.
In the dissenting opinion for Nichols v. United States, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the majority's interpretation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) was too narrow. She contended that Congress intended to create a comprehensive national system for tracking sex offenders, which included those who moved overseas. The majority's decision would allow sex offenders to evade registration by moving abroad before notifying their local jurisdictions about their change in residence. This loophole undermines SORNA’s purpose of protecting public safety from convicted sex offenders who might reoffend after disappearing from law enforcement radar screens upon leaving U.S jurisdiction without notification.
