United States v. Kebodeaux
133 S. Ct. 2496
| SCOTUS | 2013Background
- Kebodeaux, a U.S. Air Force member, was convicted in 1999 by special court-martial of a federal sex offense (carnal knowledge of a minor) and sentenced to 3 months' confinement with a bad-conduct discharge.
- He completed his sentence and was released before Congress enacted SORNA in 2006; he had registered as a sex offender in Texas in 2004.
- SORNA requires federal sex offenders to register where they live, work, and study, and authorizes penalties for noncompliance; regulations extended to pre-SORNA offenders.
- Kebodeaux was later prosecuted under SORNA for failing to update his Texas registration after moving within Texas in 2007.
- The Fifth Circuit initially upheld, then en banc reversed, Kebodeaux’s conviction, holding that pre-SORNA release meant no federal power to regulate his intrastate movements under the Necessary and Proper Clause.
- The Supreme Court reversed, holding that SORNA (as applied) fell within Congress’s power under the Military Regulation and Necessary and Proper Clauses, and that Wetterling Act precedents did not constrain this conclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SORNA is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Necessary and Proper Clause as applied to Kebodeaux | Kebodeaux’s pre-SORNA release negates federal power to regulate intrastate movement. | SORNA is a valid means to execute military regulation power; it enhances public safety and closes gaps. | Yes; SORNA validly applies under Necessary and Proper Clause. |
| Whether Wetterling Act provisions can justify SORNA under Necessary and Proper Clause | Wetterling Act applied to Kebodeaux and supports federal registration authority. | Wetterling Act, as historically applied, supports federal registration for offenders; extending to SORNA is permissible. | Yes; Wetterling Act framework supports a federal registration regime under Necessary and Proper Clause. |
| Whether SORNA's retroactive application violates the Ex Post Facto Clause | Applying SORNA after Kebodeaux's offense increases punishment and violates Ex Post Facto. | SORNA’s changes are within the range of permissible legislative adjustment under Necessary and Proper Clause. | No; retroactive changes are permissible as a valid execution of Congress's powers. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819) (establishes broad scope of Necessary and Proper Clause)
- Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 (1824) (enumerated powers must be interpreted with constitutional limits)
- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (limits on congressional regulation of noneconomic activity under Commerce Clause)
- United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (limits on Congress's power under Commerce Clause concerning noneconomic injuries)
- United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (2010) (McCulloch framework for Necessary and Proper Clause; debatable scope)
- Raich v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (economic activity and the Necessary and Proper Clause)