United States v. Felts
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5083
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Felts convicted for rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery in 1993; moved to Florida and Puerto Rico without Tennessee notice.
- Felts was indicted for failing to register under SORNA (18 U.S.C. §2250(a)); district court denied motion to dismiss; he pled guilty and was sentenced to 24 months.
- This case asks whether SORNA is effective in a state that has not yet substantially implemented the act.
- Felts argues lack of notice and non-implementation undermines SORNA’s reach; the government argues the federal duty to register exists regardless of state implementation.
- Six other circuits have held SORNA applies even without full state implementation; the district court rulings are consistent with this.
- Felts challenges through multiple avenues (due process, ex post facto, nondelegation, Tenth Amendment); the court reviews de novo on pure legal questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SORNA is effective where a state has not implemented it | Felts argues SORNA requires state implementation to trigger registration | USA asserts SORNA creates a federal duty to register regardless of state implementation | SORNA applies even before full state implementation. |
| Whether failure to register under non-implementing state violates SORNA | Felts claims inconsistency may deprive fair notice | Felts would still be liable for failure to register under federal duty | Yes; registration duty independent of state implementation. |
| Ex Post Facto challenge to retroactive application of SORNA | Felts contends retroactivity increases punishment | USA relies on Smith v. Doe; SORNA civil, not punitive | No Ex Post Facto violation; SORNA is civil/regulatory. |
| Nondelegation challenge to AG's retroactive application authority | Felts claims improper delegation without intelligible principle | Congress’s spending power supports delegation | Sufficient intelligible principle; no nondelegation violation. |
| Tenth Amendment commandeering claim | Felts asserts federal funding condition coerces Tennessee to enforce SORNA | Funding condition is permissible; not commandeering | No Tenth Amendment violation; funding condition valid; state retains choice. |
| Standing to challenge SORNA under Tenth Amendment | Felts has concrete injury from enforcement | U.S. argues lack of standing | Felts has standing; case remains justiciable. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Guzman, 591 F.3d 83 (2d Cir.2010) (SORNA duty independent of state implementation)
- United States v. George, 625 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir.2010) (registration required regardless of compliance status)
- United States v. Shenandoah, 595 F.3d 151 (3d Cir.2010) (registrant may comply via state registry; implementation details vary)
- United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459 (4th Cir.2009) (state registry suffices for federal registration obligations)
- United States v. Hinckley, 550 F.3d 926 (10th Cir.2008) (registration obligation independent of implementation status)
- United States v. Brown, 586 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir.2009) (pre-SORNA registry can satisfy SORNA requirements)
- United States v. Utesch, 596 F.3d 302 (6th Cir.2010) (cited for Sixth Circuit view on SORNA applicability)
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (SORNA-like statutes not punitive under Ex Post Facto analysis)