United States v. Powers
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant, v. Robert D. POWERS, Plaintiff-Appellee
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
Defendant Robert D. Powers was indicted for failing to register as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. § 16913 , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250 (a). Powers moved to dismiss the indictment, and, after hearing argument, the district court declared 18 U.S.C. § 2250 facially unconstitutional, dismissed the indictment, and ordered Powers released.
United States v. Powers, 544 F.Supp.2d 1331, 1336 (M.D.Fla.2008). On appeal, the Government argues the district court erred in holding 18 U.S.C. § 2250 (a) facially uncon *1344 stitutional as an invalid exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power.
In United States v. Ambert, 561 F.3d 1202 , No. 08-13139, 2009 WL 564677 (11th Cir. March 6, 2009), this Court held both the registration provisions set forth at 42 U.S.C. § 16913 and the failure to register offense set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 2250 (a) do not violate the Commerce Clause.
Id.
at *8-9, 1211-12 . We concluded § 2250 falls within Congress’s power to regulate “both the use of channels of interstate commerce and the instrumentalities of interstate commerce.”
Id.
at *8, 1211. We also concluded “the requirement that sex offenders register under § 16913 is necessary to track those offenders who move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.”
Id.
at *10,1212.
Ambert controls here. The district court erred in dismissing the indictment against Powers on the ground that SOR-NA exceeded Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause. Accordingly, we vacate the order of the district court and remand for reinstatement of the indictment.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“[T]he requirement that sex offenders register under § 16913 is necessary to track those offenders who move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.” (quotation marks omitted))
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.