« As the calender turns to June, my thoughts turn to SCOTUS, baseball and golf | Main | "Classic" split 5-4 SCOTUS ruling in reversal of Sixth Circuit habeas grant »

June 1, 2010

Sex offender prevails with challenge to SORNA conviction in Carr

SCOTUSblog already has news on the first Supreme Court opinion handed down this morning, and it is a win for a sex offender appealing his SORNA conviction in Carr.  Here is the early SCOTUSblog report:

We have the first opinion: 08-1301, Carr v. United States.... The opinion is by Justice Sotomayor, reversing and remanding....

The vote is 6-3, with Justice Scalia joining most of the Sotomayor opinion but filing a concurrence in part and in the judgment. Justice Alito dissents, joined by Justices Thomas and Ginsburg.... The Court rules that a 2007 law (SORNA) that requires sex offenders to register does not apply to sex offenders whose interstate travel occurred before the Act went into effect.

This interesting case appears to have produced an interesting vote line-up (and includes yet another pro-defendant vote from the Chief Justice).  The full Carr opinion is available here, and I will likely comment in more detail in a later post once I have a chance to review the Justices' work in detail.

June 1, 2010 at 10:09 AM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sex offender prevails with challenge to SORNA conviction in Carr:


Awesome. Some people actually getting their lives back.

Does this do anything, because of the interstate travel biz, for people who were convicted in other states previously then moved before all the new AWA restrictions went into effect in 2007? (Like an Indiana offender covicted in 2001 moving to Ohio in 2003 and getting all the extra crap dropped on him/her in 2007?)

Wow.. nice to see the Justices actually pay attention to the Constitution.. and not just a 5-4, either. Wondering what was up with Thomas on that one, since how he voted in Comstock?

Posted by: tbucket | Jun 1, 2010 11:13:13 AM

If you’re surprised that Justice Alito sided with the government in this case, raise your hand.

What, nobody?

Posted by: Marc Shepherd | Jun 1, 2010 11:25:27 AM

I say very scary. If you read the whole opinion you will note, these Injustices did NOT side on teh side of the Constitution. Instead juggled grammar and technical wording. Even so far as to state they are NOT even going to consider ex-post facto violations of SORNA.

Truly, this decision is a good thing in that it actually shows all Americans who are awake just what type of Supreme Court Injustices we have in place.

Anyone who has a slight knowledge of the Constitution knows full well, Retroactive application of law is Strictly forbidden in not only the federal constitution but also all State Constitutions.

Americans are so ignorant of what is going on in our Administrative, Judicial and Legislative branches... they do not even realize daily all rights are being taken away but for the rich and powerful.

Already it is upon us.. The Rich and Powerful have freedom and can pay for it when they transgress.. the poor and working class get thrown to the wolves... Lady Justice is a whore being sold to the highest bidder.
Our Statue of Liberty is a Mockery to Justice. Citizens for Legislative Change, America.
Anyone who thinks this decision was good.. best read all the fine print and evaluate how these people think in light of lawmaking and the constitution.

Posted by: cfcamericadotorg | Jun 2, 2010 2:34:05 AM

i agree. All this decision did was confirm they belong on the list of govt officials who are TRAITOR'S to their OATH of OFFICE and deserve nothing but summary execution for TREASON.

Posted by: rodsmith | Jun 2, 2010 2:53:46 PM

It's worse than you think, cfcamericadotorg. The rich and powerful are somewhat routinely victimized by an out-of-control justice(sic) system, too.

The difference is the rich can afford to put up a fight. Still, the system is so out of balance in favor of the government, it's a fluke even when they prevail at trial. Many of the laws written since the 1970s were written to ensure convictions, not to set forth sensible rules for citizens to live by.

Posted by: John K | Jun 2, 2010 9:27:34 PM

I am on the sex offender registry for having a consensual relationship with my now wife, in 1998.We now have two beautiful children.There is an answer to the question ",why cant the police watch these guys and prevent future horrors."?
The answer is not what people want to hear as this subject is driven by hysteria and knee jerk legislation to appease a roman colliseum, mob type mentality.

There are thousands and thousands of consensual,statutory cases on the sex offender registry in each state,Plus juvenille cases(19 year olds with 15 year olds) ,public nudity,exposure,prostitution,indecent behavior,public peeing etc.

There simply are not enough police to monitor all these cases. Because the states wont interject risk assessment hearings, all sex offender registrants are lumped together and there simply isnt enough police power to monitor all registrants,nor should they.!!!!!!!!
I have been on television numerous times on this subject. I know what i did is socially taboo and illegal, yet i am not a threat to children or women.To put me next to a child rapist on this list, is like putting a casual marijuanna smoker ,caught with a bag, in the same arena s a meth lab gangster!!!!!!!.

List of police time waisted on my case:
:ive been on this list for 11 plus years,ive had 100 plus probation appointments,40 plus home checks,done over 17 police station check ins,police monitoring our home frequently,pulled over (with my wife,both of us in cuffs)11 plus times etc.Stickers on our home on Halloween,lost 6 jobs,various acts of vigilantism etc.

We have had DCFS called on us 3 times by an anonynous neighbor because im on the list and have had numerous threatening calls to our home. Addittionally we have had to call the Crestwood Police and bother them numerous times because of suspicious cars in front of our home, snapping pictures,gawking etc.All this police time for one consensual case ,AND WE ARE MARRIED .!!!!
( We were married by the same judge who gave me the original misdimeanor,who did not consider me a threat!!! He later helped seal our case to "protect this family and the children" )

If the public is wondering why law enforcement cant even stop violent registered offenders from re-offending,the answer is that these predators are like a pin hiding in a haystack.The haystack is thousands of non violent cases like mine, that would be removed immediately if risk assessment was employed.

No media figure has the courage to tell it straight: time to weed out the predators from the registrants who simply broke the law. Then the police can triple their time up on monitoring violent offenders.( Its not the police who make these laws its the congressional and Governor wannabes,who want to appear to look "tough on crime.",yet have no clue of the ramifications of their legilation on families nor care.)

Its always the same pattern, the media likes to cry wolf,get the public excited (for sensationalism)and then the lawmakers legislate an already blotted system ,while the real predators know this and use it in their hunting techniques as camoflague.
my name is Mark Perk, l Google in" Lets seperate the Misguided from the monsters" Eric Zorn ,Chicago tribune. This is our story.

our daughter is 4 years old,ironically I am as scared as anyone of true sexual predators. The story of any young child raped is heart breaking ,frightening yet tragically will happen time and time again. No one has the courage to seperate the wheat from the chaff.or the "misguided from the monsters". Mark and Krissy Perk

Posted by: kris | Jun 9, 2010 4:51:02 AM

Good articles should share to every person ,hope you can write more and more good articles.

Posted by: pandora bracelets | Nov 16, 2010 12:40:41 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB