United States v. Yelloweagle
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8934
10th Cir.2011Background
- Congress enacted SORNA in 2006 to create a national sex offender registration system, with §16913 imposing a federal registration requirement.
- §2250(a) creates a federal crime for failing to register, applicable to offenders Federal-convicted or traveling across state lines, but not to wholly intrastate state offenders who never travel.
- Yelloweagle pleaded guilty in 2005 to abusive sexual conduct in Indian country and was sentenced to imprisonment with supervised release conditioned on registering where he resides/work/studies.
- After SORNA's passage, Yelloweagle missed a registration update in 2007 and was indicted under §2250(a)(2)(A) for failing to register, based on a prior federal conviction.
- The district court denied dismissal; on appeal Yelloweagle argued §16913 was unconstitutional and §2250(a)(2)(A) lacked jurisdictional basis; he later shifted to a facial challenge to §2250(a)(2)(A) only.
- The Tenth Circuit found that Yelloweagle abandoned his challenge to §16913 on appeal and addressed §2250(a)(2)(A) under the Necessary and Proper Clause, affirming the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2250(a)(2)(A) is valid under the Commerce Clause | Yelloweagle argued Congress lacked authority to criminalize failure to register. | Yelloweagle acknowledged broad authority but contended no basis for §2250(a)(2)(A). | Affirmed; court assumed §16913 valid and upheld §2250(a)(2)(A) under Necessary and Proper. |
| Waiver of §16913 challenge on appeal | Yelloweagle could contest §16913 as part of the §2250(a) challenge. | Yelloweagle abandoned §16913 on appeal by focusing only on §2250(a)(2)(A). | Waived §16913 challenge; cannot rely on §16913 invalidity to salvage §2250(a)(2)(A). |
| Whether the Necessary and Proper Clause supports §2250(a)(2)(A) if §16913 is valid | Not necessary if §16913 unconstitutional; otherwise unsupported. | Enforcement provision is rationally related to enforcement of a valid registration regime. | Yes; §2250(a)(2)(A) is a rationally related enforcement mechanism to §16913. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Comstock, 130 S. Ct. 1949 (U.S. 2010) (Necessary and Proper Clause permits rational means to enforce enumerated powers)
- Plotts v. United States, 347 F.3d 873 (8th Cir. 2003) (Civil sanctions may be punished under Necessary and Proper to enforce valid laws)
- Kebodeaux v. United States, 634 F.3d 293 (5th Cir. 2011) (Discusses relationship between §2250(a)(2)(A) and §16913 with respect to enforcement)
- Carr v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2229 (U.S. 2010) (SORNA's structure and enforcement provisions clarified; §2250(a) tied to §16913)
- McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (U.S. 1819) (Foundational Necessary and Proper Clause interpretation)