Nichols v. United States

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.[1]

Nichols v. United States
Argued March 1, 2016
Decided April 4, 2016
Full case nameLester Ray Nichols, Petitioner v. United States
Docket no.15-5238
Citations578 U.S. ___ (more)
136 S. Ct. 1113; 194 L. Ed. 2d 324
Case history
PriorUnited States v. Nichols, 775 F.3d 1225 (10th Cir. 2014); rehearing en banc denied, 784 F.3d 666 (10th Cir. 2015); cert. granted, 136 S. Ct. 445 (2015).
Holding
The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act does not require an individual to update his registration once departing a state.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Case opinion
MajorityAlito, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Background

In 2003, Lester Ray Nichols was convicted of "traveling with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor" under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b).[2] Congress passed the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) in 2006 and the United States Attorney General determined in 2007 that the law applied retroactively. When Nichols was released in December 2011, he complied with SORNA's registration requirements, registering as a sex offender in Kansas. In November 2012, Nichols abruptly decided to leave Kansas and move to Manila in the Philippines.

Nichols was arrested and charged with violating SORNA reporting requirements. He filed a motion to "dismiss the indictment on the ground that SORNA did not require him to update his registration in Kansas"; however his motion was denied and "Nichols conditionally pleaded guilty, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion."[2]

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed his conviction.[3] In a 2013 case involving a man from the Kansas City area who had also moved to the Philippines, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held in United States v. Lunsford that the defendant had no obligation to update his registration.[4] The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the circuit split.[2]

Opinion of the Court

Associate Justice Samuel Alito authored a unanimous decision holding that a plain text reading of SORNA applies to a place in which a resident resides, not resided.[2] Because the Philippines is a foreign jurisdiction where SORNA is inapplicable and because the law uses the present tense, Nichols had no obligation under this federal law to update his registration. Under Kansas state law and under the subsequently enacted federal legislation, Nichols does have an obligation to update his registration information.

gollark: /coroutine.
gollark: Also thread.
gollark: Also userdata.
gollark: SSE4.1! SSE4.1! SSE4.1! SSE4.1! SSE4.1! SSE4.1! SSE4.1! SSE4.1! SSE4.1! SSE4.1! SSE4.1! SSE4.1! SSE4.1! SSE4.1! SSE4.1! SSE4.1! SSE4.1! SSE4.1!
gollark: Link please?

References
  1. SCOTUSblog coverage
  2. Nichols v. United States, No. 15–5238, 578 U.S. ____ (2016).
  3. United States v. Nichols, 775 F.3d 1225 (10th Cir. 2014); rehearing en banc denied, 784 F.3d 666 (10th Cir. 2015).
  4. United States v. Lunsford, 725 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2013).
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.