United States v. Sabil Mujahid, 799 F.3d 1228

Mujahid, arrested in Anchorage (2009) for a federal felon-in-possession charge, was housed at the Anchorage Correctional Complex under a U.S. Marshals Service contract with the Alaska Department of Corrections.
During confinement at the Anchorage Complex, Mujahid allegedly sexually assaulted other prisoners, leading to multiple federal counts under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2242, 2244.
Mujahid moved to dismiss the indictment on grounds that the statutes exceed Congress’s authority and are unconstitutional as applied; the district court denied the motion.
A contract for housing federal prisoners at the Anchorage Complex was introduced at trial; Mujahid objected to the district court’s location-based jury instruction, arguing the existence of the contract should have been a jury question.
Mujahid was convicted of four counts of aggravated sexual abuse and three counts of abusive sexual contact; he appealed challenging both facial validity and as-applied challenges, as well as the jurisdictional question about the contract.”
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions, holding the statutes are facially constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause and that, in his case, the contract question could be decided as a matter of law by the district court when the facts are undisputed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241–2244 facially constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause?	Mujahid contends Congress overstepped its powers by reaching state prisons.	United States maintains the 2006 amendment is a proper, modest extension to enforce federal prison safety.	Yes; statutes not facially unconstitutional.
Are the statutes unconstitutional as applied to Mujahid given his custody status?	Mujahid argues Alaska custody at times could undermine federal custody.	Government contends the statutes apply to federal custody regardless of state custody.	Not decided on direct as-applied challenge; the statutes are constitutional as applied to a federally detained individual.
Whether the district court could decide the contract existence as a matter of law rather than submitting to the jury?	Mujahid argues mixed question of law and fact; the jury should decide contract existence.	Existence of the contract is a legal question when undisputed.	District court may decide the contract existence as a matter of law when undisputed.
Should the jury determine whether the crime occurred at a facility under contract, i.e., location-specific element?	Gaudin approach requires jury to decide all elements including jurisdictional facts.	Jurisdictional question can be resolved by the court; only factual causation for the offense goes to the jury.	Yes; the location question can be reserved for the court when undisputed; the offense facts go to the jury.

United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (2010) (upholds federal custody power under Necessary and Proper Clause)
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (facial challenges require a showing no set of circumstances could render statute valid)
Bond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 2077 (2014) (broad Necessary and Proper Clause power, with limits on punitive reach)
United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941) (police power related to federal custody and labor regulation)
United States v. Zakharov, 468 F.3d 1171 (2006) (jurisdictional question treated as law where no disputed facts exist)
United States v. Perlaza, 439 F.3d 1149 (2006) (jurisdictional component as pure question of law in some contexts)
Chateau des Charme Wines Ltd. v. Sabate USA Inc., 328 F.3d 530 (2003) (contract existence is a question of law when undisputed)
United States v. James, 987 F.2d 648 (1993) (bank robbery FDIC-insured analogy used for jury/fact allocation)