United States v. Yelloweagle, No. 09-1247 (10th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCongress enacted an elaborate system of registration and reporting requirements for individuals convicted of sex offenses. The law requires all sex offenders to register, regardless of whether their convictions were based on federal or state law. For those convicted on federal sex offenses, an enforcement provision provides that the failure to register or update a registration constitutes a new federal crime. Defendant Alden Yelloweagle was previously convicted of a federal sex offense. When he failed to register as required, he was indicted by federal officials under the enforcement provision. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment for numerous reasons. Two reasons he brought to the Tenth Circuit on appeal: first, he contended there is no provision of the U.S. Constitution that authorizes Congress to require all sex offenders to register; and secondly, even if the registration requirement is valid, Defendant contended that the criminal enforcement provision lacks a jurisdictional basis and therefore is unconstitutional. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss on both these claims. In his brief submitted to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant made no mention of his first argument; he only focused on the claim that Congress lacked the power to criminalize the failure-to-register provision. The Government argued that by shifting his focus on the criminalization of the requirement, Defendant conceded it is constitutional, and therefore valid under the Necessary and Proper Clause. The Tenth Circuit agreed with the Government: “[w]hen we assume that the registration requirement is constitutional, it follows that the criminal statute enforcing compliance with that requirement is a valid exercise of Congressional authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause.” For that reason, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.