Opinion
Criminal No. 09-20066-001.
December 18, 2009
ORDER
Before the Court are Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Doc. 16) and the United States' Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Doc. 18).
Defendant was charged in the indictment with failure to register and/or update his registration pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2250, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, 42 U.S.C. § 16901 et seq. ("Adam Walsh Act"). This act concerns a defendant who knowingly fails to register or update a registration as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act ("SORNA"). Defendant contends the indictment is defective as: (1) 18 U.S.C. § 2250 and 42 U.S.C. § 16973 violate the Commerce Clause due to an insufficient nexus between the activities to be controlled and interstate commerce; (2) he did not receive fair notice that SORNA applied to him in violation of the Due Process Clause; and (3) Congress delegated power to the Attorney General in violation of the Non-Delegation Clause.
Since their enactment in 2006, 18 U.S.C. § 2250 and 42 U.S.C. § 16973 have been challenged across the country. As noted by Defendant, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held both statutes to be constitutional under the Commerce Clause, Due Process Clause and the non-delegation doctrine. See United States v. Howell, 552 F.3d 709, 713-15 (8th Cir. 2009). See also, United States v. Hacker, 565 F.3d 522, 528 (8th Cir. 2009) (affirming that offenders who have already registered in state offender registry programs lack standing to pursue non-delegation challenge); United States v. May, 535 F.3d 912, 921 (8th Cir. 2008). Despite rulings to the contrary by district courts in other circuits, the Court declines to abandon Eighth Circuit precedent. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Doc. 16) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.