United States v. Richardson, No. 11-10346 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction and sentence for violating the registration requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. 16911 et seq. The court held that SORNA's delegation of authority to the Attorney General to determine the applicability of SORNA's registration requirements to pre-SORNA sex offenders is consistent with the requirements of the non-delegation doctrine; the court joined its sister circuits and held that SORNA does not violate the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering principle; and defendant's claims that SORNA's registration requirements violate the Commerce Clause and Ex Post Facto Clause were foreclosed by circuit precedent. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Criminal Law. Affirming a conviction for violating the registration requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, the panel held that (1) SORNA’s delegation of authority to the Attorney General to determine the applicability of SORNA’s registration requirements to pre- SORNA sex offenders is consistent with the requirements of the non-delegation doctrine; and (2) SORNA does not violate the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle. The panel wrote that the defendant’s arguments that SORNA’s registration requirements violate the Commerce Clause and the Ex Post Facto Clause are foreclosed in this circuit. The panel resolved a sentencing issue in a concurrently- filed memorandum disposition.
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.