United States v. Anthony Kebodeaux
687 F.3d 232
5th Cir.2012Background
- Kebodeaux, a federal sex offender, was convicted in 1999 for a UCMJ sexual offense involving a minor and later faced SORNA registration obligations.
- SORNA was enacted in 2006, expanding registration and criminal penalties for failing to register or update; applicability can extend to pre-act offenders via Attorney General rules.
- Kebodeaux moved intrastate within Texas (San Antonio to El Paso) and did not update his registration within three days, triggering § 2250(a) prosecution.
- At the time of his offense, Kebodeaux was no longer in federal custody, supervision, or a prisoner, though the pre-act regime and Wetterling/Lychner laws had previously imposed registration requirements.
- A panel held SORNA as applied to Kebodeaux unconstitutional under the Commerce/Necessary and Proper Clause; the en banc court reversed, concluding the statute is unconstitutional as applied only to Kebodeaux’s narrow facts.
- Dissenting opinions argued that SORNA could be constitutionally applied under spending, commerce, and criminal-enforcement powers and that Kebodeaux’s as-applied challenge should fail.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can §2250(a)(2)(A) constitutionally apply to Kebodeaux after unconditional release? | Kebodeaux | United States | No, as applied only to Kebodeaux. |
| Is SORNA a valid exercise of Commerce/Necessary and Proper power for former federal offenders? | Kebodeaux | United States | No, under majority reasoning; dissent argues yes under combined powers. |
| Does retroactivity defeat application of SORNA to pre-act offenders? | Kebodeaux | United States | The majority concluded retroactivity problematic; others argue continued jurisdiction via prior regimes. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Comstock, 130 S. Ct. 1949 (2010) (upheld civil-commitment statute under five Comstock considerations; framework for Necessary and Proper Clause)
- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (set limits on Commerce Clause categories: channels, instrumentalities, and activity with substantial effects on commerce)
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (upheld regulation of economically substantial intrastate activity under the Commerce Clause)
- United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (illustrates noneconomic intrastate activity limits under Commerce Clause)
- United States v. Whaley, 577 F.3d 254 (2009) (upheld state-offender registration requirements under Lopez framework)
- Carr v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2229 (2010) (discussed government’s direct supervisory interest and power to enforce §2250 across offender types)
- United States v. Johnson, 632 F.3d 912 (2011) (addressed retroactivity of SORNA and applicability to pre-SORNA offenders)