United States v. Johnson
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2313
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Johnson was Mississippi-registered sex offender convicted in 1995 for gratification of lust and served prison time.
- Before release, Johnson acknowledged duty to register under Mississippi law in 1999 and again in 2002 and 2004; later registered in Iowa in 2005.
- In 2008 Johnson failed to register upon returning to Mississippi, leading to a federal indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a).
- SORNA, enacted in 2006, created a national sex-offender registry and mandated cross-jurisdiction registration with a federal penalty for noncompliance.
- The Attorney General issued an interim regulation in 2007 applying SORNA to pre-enactment offenders, relying on good cause under the APA, followed by final rules in 2008.
- Johnson pleaded guilty with a reservation to raise constitutional challenges on appeal; on appeal he challenged SORNA’s retroactivity, among other issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SORNA applies to pre-enactment offenders | Johnson: AG lacked authority to apply retroactively without clear delegation. | Johnson: Congress delegated retroactivity decision to AG; plain text supports delegation. | AG delegation valid; SORNA applies as to pre-enactment offenders per §16913(d). |
| APA notice-and-comment requirements for interim rule | Johnson: AG bypassed notice and 30-day requirement, violating APA. | Johnson: good cause justified interim rule to prevent public harm. | APA procedures violated, but violations deemed harmless error under the circumstances. |
| Tenth Amendment standing to challenge federal requirement on state actors | Johnson argues federal coercion of state registration violates Tenth Amendment. | SORNA conditions funding; states may choose to implement without unconstitutional coercion. | Assumed standing; holding supports constitutionality under spending power and non-coercive implementation. |
| Ex Post Facto and retroactivity | retroactive penalties punitive for pre-enactment conduct. | SORNA’s registration is non-punitive; not ex post facto. | SORNA does not violate Ex Post Facto principles. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carr v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2229 (2010) (Supreme Court recognized delegation concepts relevant to retroactivity.)
- Hinckley v. United States, 550 F.3d 926 (10th Cir. 2008) (discussed delegation and retroactivity of SORNA)
- Cain v. United States, 583 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 2009) (retroactivity and delegation interpretations in SORNA context)
- Valverde v. United States, 628 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2010) (avoidance of retroactivity questions in SORNA)
- Dean v. United States, 604 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2010) (APA good cause and notice-and-comment considerations in SORNA context)
- Madera v. United States, 474 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (M.D. Fla. 2007) (early discussions of SORNA retroactivity challenges)
- Shenandoah v. United States, 595 F.3d 151 (3d Cir. 2010) (standing and SORNA retroactivity considerations)