Carr v. United States

2010-06-01

Headline: Court narrows reach of federal sex-offender crime, blocking prosecutions based on interstate travel that occurred before SORNA took effect and limiting who can be federally charged.

Holding: Section 2250 does not apply to sex offenders whose interstate travel occurred before SORNA’s effective date; the Court therefore did not address the Ex Post Facto claim.

Real World Impact:

Bars federal prosecutions based on interstate travel that occurred before SORNA's effective date.
Requires prosecutors to prove travel happened after SORNA for §2250 cases.
Leaves unresolved whether SORNA applies to earlier convictions and Ex Post Facto challenges.

Topics: sex offender registration, interstate travel, criminal law timing, federal vs state enforcement

Summary

Background

Thomas Carr, a man convicted of sexual abuse in Alabama, registered there after his release. Before the 2006 federal law SORNA took effect, he moved to Indiana and did not register under Indiana law. After SORNA and an Attorney General regulation became applicable to some prior convictions, federal prosecutors charged him under 18 U.S.C. §2250 for failing to register, he pleaded guilty, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed his conviction.

Reasoning

The core question was whether §2250 reaches a sex offender whose interstate travel occurred before SORNA’s effective date. The Court read the statute’s text and context and concluded that its travel element uses the present tense (“travels”) and that the listed elements must occur in sequence, so liability requires travel after a person is required to register under SORNA. The Court rejected the Government’s policy arguments and analogy to gun statutes, and it found legislative history consistent with a post-enactment reading.

Real world impact

The ruling means federal prosecutors generally cannot use a person’s travel that happened before SORNA became law to prove a §2250 violation. The Court did not decide whether SORNA applies to people with convictions before the Act (a separate question involving an Attorney General rule) and it did not resolve the Ex Post Facto Clause issue.

Dissents or concurrances

A concurring Justice agreed with the outcome but urged reliance solely on the statute’s text. A dissenting opinion argued the law should reach earlier travelers and criticized the majority’s interpretation.