Law, College of
Nebraska Law Bulletin (Selected Issues)
Date of this Version
3-31-2009
Document Type
Article
Citation
Nebraska Law Bulletin (March 31, 2009)
Abstract
Child exploitation and other sexual crimes are some of the most perverse and pervasive crimes in the United States. Cases such as those involving Elizabeth Smart and Jessica Lunsford grab headlines and demonstrate the depravity of some criminals. In an effort to combat such offenders, Congress enacted the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. Title I of the Act is called the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA).
In the past year, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has decided two cases involving challenges to SORNA. Both cases involved criminal defendants who argued, among other things, that provisions of SORNA violated the Commerce Clause. These cases are United States v. May and United States v. Howell. In both cases, the Eighth Circuit upheld the challenged provisions of SORNA.
The purpose of this commentary is to explain the Eighth Circuit’s decisions in May and Howell. This commentary contains four parts. The first is a summary of the facts and holdings of May and Howell. The second is a very brief overview of Commerce Clause jurisprudence. The third examines how courts across the country have applied that jurisprudence to SORNA. The last section explains what May and Howell mean for practitioners in the Eighth Circuit.
Comments
Copyright 2009, the author