Wednesday
Feb242010
High Court Considers 'Lincoln Tunnel Baby' And Sex Offender Registries
Wednesday, February 24, 2010 at 12:28PM
If a baby rides in a car through the Lincoln Tunnel and commits a sex offense 50 years later, never leaving New Jersey in the meantime, does the Federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) apply before the offense is committed? That was one of the questions considered in the U.S. Supreme Court today in the case of Carr v. US.
SORNA was passed in 2006, over a year after Thomas Carr moved to Indiana and failed to register there as a sex offender. Carr was arrested in 2007 and charged with failing to register, a crime that carries a sentence of up to 10 years in prison. Carr argued that, since his move took place before the law was passed, he was exempt from the registration requirement.
Government lawyers in court today argued, to the contrary, that the law’s requirement of travel was a “jurisdictional hook,” added by Congress because the federal government has no power to regulate activities that occur solely inside a single state. Thus, the law’s purpose of requiring sex offenders to register is only served when the law is given the broadest possible reading, meaning travel can have occurred even before the statute was passed.
Justices expressed some concern with the language used in the law. The law says that someone who “travels” in interstate commerce falls under the law, and the use of the present tense implies that it does not apply to prior acts. If the government wants that language read broadly, Justice Antonin Scalia asked, why should the law not apply to people who travel before they even commit the sex offense, raising the “Lincoln Tunnel Baby” hypothetical.
Several Justices expressed concerns with both parties’ interpretations of the law, so it was not clear how they would rule. The Court will announce its opinion before the summer.
SORNA was passed in 2006, over a year after Thomas Carr moved to Indiana and failed to register there as a sex offender. Carr was arrested in 2007 and charged with failing to register, a crime that carries a sentence of up to 10 years in prison. Carr argued that, since his move took place before the law was passed, he was exempt from the registration requirement.
Government lawyers in court today argued, to the contrary, that the law’s requirement of travel was a “jurisdictional hook,” added by Congress because the federal government has no power to regulate activities that occur solely inside a single state. Thus, the law’s purpose of requiring sex offenders to register is only served when the law is given the broadest possible reading, meaning travel can have occurred even before the statute was passed.
Justices expressed some concern with the language used in the law. The law says that someone who “travels” in interstate commerce falls under the law, and the use of the present tense implies that it does not apply to prior acts. If the government wants that language read broadly, Justice Antonin Scalia asked, why should the law not apply to people who travel before they even commit the sex offense, raising the “Lincoln Tunnel Baby” hypothetical.
Several Justices expressed concerns with both parties’ interpretations of the law, so it was not clear how they would rule. The Court will announce its opinion before the summer.
Reader Comments