United States v. Anthony Kebodeaux
647 F.3d 137
5th Cir.2011Background
- Kebodeaux, a federally-adjudged sex offender, was convicted of knowingly failing to update his SORNA registration after moving within Texas (El Paso to San Antonio).
- He was convicted under 18 U.S.C. §2250(a)(2)(A) and sentenced to 12 months and 1 day of imprisonment with a five-year supervised release term.
- On appeal, Kebodeaux argues §2250(a)(2)(A) is unconstitutional because it criminalizes intrastate activity without a Commerce Clause nexus.
- The government charged Kebodeaux solely under §2250(a)(2)(A) as he qualified as a federal offender under SORNA’s scheme.
- The Fifth Circuit granted rehearing en banc, withdrew its prior Kebodeaux decision, and held §2250(a)(2)(A) constitutional as applied to intrastate violations within the broader SORNA framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2250(a)(2)(A) is constitutional under the Necessary and Proper and Commerce Clause powers. | Kebodeaux argues it targets intrastate activity without interstate commerce connection. | Kebodeaux contends §2250(a)(2)(A) is invalid as stand-alone intrastate regulation. | Constitutional as part of SORNA’s scheme; rationally related to interstate regulation. |
| Whether Carr v. United States supports treating §2250(a)(2)(A) as a valid extension of Commerce Clause power. | Kebodeaux emphasizes lack of interstate travel under §2250(a)(2)(A). | The panel aligns with Carr’s logic that §2250(a)(2)(A) complements overall SORNA regulation. | Carr supports the integrated, non-stand-alone interpretation of §2250(a)(2)(A). |
| Whether the decision would unduly expand federal power beyond the Ex Post Facto or Tenth Amendment limits. | Argues potential overbreadth and limits on federal authority. | Argues narrow, non-punitive, collateral regulatory scheme sufficiently bounded. | Statute’s scope is narrow and bounded within SORNA’s non-punitive, interstate-regulation framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carr v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2229 (2010) (upholds §2250(a)(2)(B); explains §2250 is embedded in a broader national scheme)
- United States v. Whaley, 577 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2009) (upholds §16913 and §2250(b) as Commerce Clause compliant)
- United States v. George, 625 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2010) (held §2250(a)(2)(A) constitutional as integration with SORNA’s scheme)
- United States v. Comstock, 130 S. Ct. 1949 (2010) (establishes Necessary and Proper Clause standards for federal statutes)
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (limits and explains reach of Commerce Clause with Necessary and Proper Clause)