Nichols v. United States
136 S. Ct. 1113
| SCOTUS | 2016Background
- Lester Ray Nichols, a federally required sex-offender registrant in Kansas, moved to the Philippines in November 2012 without notifying Kansas authorities or updating his SORNA registration.
- Nichols was arrested in Manila, brought back to the U.S., and charged under 18 U.S.C. §2250(a) for knowingly failing to update a SORNA registration.
- SORNA requires a sex offender to “appear in person in at least 1 jurisdiction involved pursuant to subsection (a)” within 3 business days after each change of residence, and to keep registration current in each jurisdiction “where the offender resides, where the offender is an employee, and where the offender is a student.” 42 U.S.C. §§16913(a), (c).
- The legal question: did SORNA require Nichols to update his Kansas registration after he left the State and established residence abroad?
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed Nichols’s conviction (following its Murphy precedent); the Eighth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in Lunsford. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the split.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nichols) | Defendant's Argument (United States) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SORNA requires an offender to update the registration in the State he departed after establishing foreign residence | Nichols: No; §16913(a) uses present tense (“resides”), so once he left Kansas it was no longer a jurisdiction “where the offender resides” | Gov’t: Yes; a jurisdiction where an offender appears on a registry remains “involved” even after departure, so he must update the departure jurisdiction | The Court held Nichols was not required to update Kansas after he left; present-tense text controls |
| Whether §16913(c)’s 3-day in-person requirement can be satisfied by appearing before departure | Nichols: In-person appearance after departure in the old State is impossible; arrival abroad is not a SORNA “jurisdiction” | Gov’t: The day before departure can count or the statute contemplates reporting changes before actual move | Court: Ordinary reading rejects hypertechnical timing; statute does not require pre-departure deregistration in departure State |
| Whether courts may read an implicit “appears on a registry” clause into §16913(a) | Nichols: Statute lists only three present-tense categories; courts should not add language | Gov’t: The omission should be read to include jurisdictions where offender remains listed | Court: Refused to judicially add such a clause; would exceed judicial role |
| Whether purposes of SORNA override the plain text here | Nichols: Plain text controls; purposes don't change meaning | Gov’t: Interpreting otherwise would undermine SORNA’s purpose to prevent missing registrants | Court: Purposes acknowledged but cannot overcome clear statutory text; other federal and state laws address foreign-travel reporting |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (discussing origin and purpose of sex-offender registration laws)
- Carr v. United States, 560 U.S. 438 (establishing that failure to register in accordance with SORNA can be a federal crime)
- Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (statutory interpretation guided by ordinary English usage)
- United States v. Murphy, 664 F.3d 798 (10th Cir. 2011) (Tenth Circuit precedent holding departure State remains involved)
- United States v. Lunsford, 725 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2013) (contrary circuit holding that departure State is not required to be updated)
- United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321 (syllabus disclaimer on headnotes)
- Iselin v. United States, 270 U.S. 245 (courts may not supply omissions to statutes)