Nichols v. United States
Headline: Court limits federal sex-offender update rule, holding that SORNA does not require former residents who move abroad to update their old State’s registry, narrowing when the federal crime applies and who is affected.
Holding: The Court held that under SORNA a person who moves from a State to a foreign country is not required to appear in the State they left to update their sex-offender registration, and it reversed the Tenth Circuit's decision.
- SORNA no longer requires former State registration updates after moving abroad.
- States can still enforce their own registration and reporting laws.
- A newer federal travel-notification law can criminalize some international travel without notice.
Summary
Background
A man who had been required to register as a sex offender in Kansas moved to the Philippines without telling Kansas authorities. The United States charged him under a federal law called SORNA for failing to update his registration in Kansas after he left. Lower courts split on whether the State he left still counted as an "involved" jurisdiction that he had to notify.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the State a person leaves still counts as a place he must appear to update his registration. The Court focused on the text of SORNA, which says a person must register where he "resides," "is an employee," or "is a student"—all written in the present tense. The Court explained that after the man moved to the Philippines he no longer "resided" in Kansas, so Kansas was not an "involved" jurisdiction under that provision. Because SORNA requires in-person notice in a current jurisdiction within three business days, the law did not require him to return to Kansas to update the old registration. The Court reversed the Tenth Circuit.
Real world impact
The decision means that, under SORNA as written, people who leave the country are not automatically required to appear in the State they left to update federal registration information. The opinion notes that Congress and States have other tools: a newer federal travel-notification law and Kansas's own reporting rules still criminalize or penalize some conduct. This ruling interprets the specific SORNA text and does not eliminate other federal or state obligations that apply to travelers.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?