United States v. Richardson
580 Fed. Appx. 526
9th Cir.2014Background
- Richardson was convicted in California in 1994 of lewd and lascivious acts with a child and ordered to register as a sex offender.
- In 2010, a federal grand jury indicted Richardson for failing to register as required by SORNA.
- He moved to dismiss the indictment arguing SORNA is unconstitutional under non-delegation, the Tenth Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the Ex Post Facto Clause.
- Richardson pled guilty to a single-count indictment and objected to a Presentence Investigation Report point for a 2000 misdemeanor, resulting in time served.
- The district court overruled the objection and sentenced him to twenty-seven months; his appeal was denied and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Non-delegation of authority to AG for pre-SORNA offenders | Richardson contends delegation violates non-delegation. | AG's authority satisfies intelligible principle; circuits agree. | Non-delegation challenge rejected. |
| Tenth Amendment anti-commandeering | SORNA coerces states to regulate under federal standards. | Funding conditions, not commandeering, validate the statute. | Tenth Amendment challenge rejected. |
| Commerce Clause | SORNA exceeds Congress's commerce power. | Courts have foreclosed this challenge to SORNA in this circuit. | Commerce Clause challenge rejected. |
| Ex Post Facto Clause | SORNA imposes retroactive penalties on offenders. | Retroactivity properly bounded; challenged in this circuit. | Ex Post Facto challenge rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Touby v. United States, 500 U.S. 160 (1991) (non-delegation doctrine framework)
- Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 531 U.S. 457 (2001) (intelligible principle requirement)
- Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (1944) (purpose of intelligible principles in delegation)
- Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989) (practical delegation justified by complexity)
- Hepting v. AT&T Corp. (In re Nat’l Sec. Agency Telecommunications Records Litig.), 671 F.3d 881 (9th Cir.2011) (delegation analysis applied)
- United States v. Cooper, 750 F.3d 263 (3d Cir.2014) (nondelegation for pre-Act offenders valid)
- United States v. Goodwin, 717 F.3d 511 (7th Cir.2013) (intelligible principle limits on AG authority)
- United States v. Felts, 674 F.3d 599 (6th Cir.2012) (SORNA delegation proper under intelligible principle)
- Kennedy v. Allera, 612 F.3d 261 (4th Cir.2010) (SORNA delegation within permissible range)
- United States v. Johnson, 632 F.3d 912 (5th Cir.2011) (funding-condition approach to Tenth Amendment)
- Cabrera-Gutierrez, 756 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir.2014) (Commerce Clause/Ex Post Facto considerations in SORNA)
- United States v. Shoulder, 738 F.3d 948 (9th Cir.2013) (Ex Post Facto challenge to SORNA foreclosed)
- United States v. Elkins, 683 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir.2012) (Ex Post Facto challenge to SORNA foreclosed)