34 U.S.C. § 20927

Failure of jurisdiction to comply

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 34 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In general

For any fiscal year after the end of the period for implementation, a jurisdiction that fails, as determined by the Attorney General, to substantially implement this subchapter shall not receive 10 percent of the funds that would otherwise be allocated for that fiscal year to the jurisdiction under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et seq.).11 See References in Text note below.

(b) State constitutionality(1) In general

When evaluating whether a jurisdiction has substantially implemented this subchapter, the Attorney General shall consider whether the jurisdiction is unable to substantially implement this subchapter because of a demonstrated inability to implement certain provisions that would place the jurisdiction in violation of its constitution, as determined by a ruling of the jurisdiction’s highest court.

(2) Efforts

If the circumstances arise under paragraph (1), then the Attorney General and the jurisdiction shall make good faith efforts to accomplish substantial implementation of this subchapter and to reconcile any conflicts between this subchapter and the jurisdiction’s constitution. In considering whether compliance with the requirements of this subchapter would likely violate the jurisdiction’s constitution or an interpretation thereof by the jurisdiction’s highest court, the Attorney General shall consult with the chief executive and chief legal officer of the jurisdiction concerning the jurisdiction’s interpretation of the jurisdiction’s constitution and rulings thereon by the jurisdiction’s highest court.

(3) Alternative procedures

If the jurisdiction is unable to substantially implement this subchapter because of a limitation imposed by the jurisdiction’s constitution, the Attorney General may determine that the jurisdiction is in compliance with this chapter if the jurisdiction has made, or is in the process of implementing 22 So in original. Probably should be followed by a comma. reasonable alternative procedures or accommodations, which are consistent with the purposes of this chapter.

(4) Funding reduction

If a jurisdiction does not comply with paragraph (3), then the jurisdiction shall be subject to a funding reduction as specified in subsection (a).

Amounts not allocated under a program referred to in this section to a jurisdiction for failure to substantially implement this subchapter shall be reallocated under that program to jurisdictions that have not failed to substantially implement this subchapter or may be reallocated to a jurisdiction from which they were withheld to be used solely for the purpose of implementing this subchapter.

(d) Rule of construction

The provisions of this subchapter that are cast as directions to jurisdictions or their officials constitute, in relation to States, only conditions required to avoid the reduction of Federal funding under this section.

(Pub. L. 109–248, title I, § 125, July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 598.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This subchapter, referred to in text, was in the original “this title”, meaning title I of Pub. L. 109–248, July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 590, known as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. For complete classification of title I to the Code, see Short Title of 2006 Act note set out under section 10101 of this title and Tables.

The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, referred to in subsec. (a), is Pub. L. 90–351, June 19, 1968, 82 Stat. 197. Subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Act was classified generally to part A (§ 3750 et seq.) of subchapter V of chapter 46 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification as part A (§ 10151 et seq.) of subchapter V of chapter 101 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1968 Act note set out under section 10101 of this title and Tables.

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (b)(3), was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 109–248, July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 587, known as the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 2006 Act note set out under section 10101 of this title and Tables.

Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 16925 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 28 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 2017–2025 · leading case: City of Chicago v. Jefferson B. Sessions III, 888 F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of Chicago v. Jefferson B. Sessions III, 888 F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2018). · cites it 3× “34 U.S.C. § 20927 (a). And the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 stipulates that a state that does not certify full compliance with its national standards can forfeit 5 percent of JAG funds unless it certifies that no less than 5 percent of such funds will be used solely to…”

In re State, 182 A.3d 917 (N.J. 2018). · cites it 3× “See 34 U.S.C. § 20927 ; see also 34 U.S.C. § 10151 (establishing that non-compliant jurisdictions lose ten percent of funds from federal Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program).”

Piasecki v. Court of Common Pleas, Bucks Cnty., PA, 917 F.3d 161 (3rd Cir. 2019). “587 34, § 125 (implemented as 34 U.S.C. § 20927 ). 42 Pa.C.S §§ 9799.12 -9799.”

City of Philadelphia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 579 (E.D. Pa. 2017). “Under 34 U.S.C.A. § 20927 , for example, “a jurisdiction that fails, as determined by the Attorney General, to substantially implement this subchapter [dealing with sex offender registration and notification] shall not receive 10 percent of the funds that would otherwise be…”

City & Cnty. of S.F. v. Sessions, 349 F. Supp. 3d 924 (N.D. Cal. 2018). “Congress has exercised its power to impose conditions on Byrne JAG funding in the past, legislating a ten percent withholding of Byrne JAG funds for failing to implement federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, 34 U.S.C. § 20927 (a), a penalty for failing to…”

People v. Corr, 42 N.Y.3d 668 (NY 2024). “Second, states are free to ignore the federal minimum standards as long as they are willing to forgo certain categories of federal funding ( see 34 USC § 20927 [a]). Footnote 1: Defendants assert federal and state constitutional challenges based on equal protection and due…”

Wilkerson v. State, 533 S.W.3d 755 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). “” 34 U.S.C. § 20927 (a). Wilkerson is considered a “Tier 1” offender under SORNA, which means that she is required to register for fifteen years, 34 U.”

In re G.H., 190 A.3d 1059 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2018). “(citing 34 U.S.C. § 20927 ; 34 U.S.C. § 10151 ). "[M]ost states, including New Jersey, have not substantially implemented SORNA.”

The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent, IN the INTEREST OF T.B., Respondent/Cross-Petitioner, 489 P.3d 752 (Colo. 2021). “34 U.S.C. § 20927 ( 2018 ) . ¶7 Notably, SORNA covers a broader range of offenders by employing a three-tier offender classification, 34 U.”

James Bullard Minter v. The State of Wyoming, 2023 WY 35 (Wyo. 2023). “; 34 U.S.C. § 20927 (a). As a result, while Wyoming may have substantially implemented the requirements of SORNA, the language of the Wyoming Act does not mirror SORNA.”

Cogley v. State of Rhode Island (D.R.I. 2024). · cites it 6× “34 U.S.C. § 20927 . Count VI is brought under the False Claims Act, 31 U.”

City of Chicago v. William P. Barr (7th Cir. 2020). · cites it 5× “34 U.S.C. § 20927 (a). And the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 stipulates that a state that does not certify full compliance with its na- tional standards can forfeit 5 percent of JAG funds unless it certifies that no less than 5 per- cent of such funds will be used solely…”

Show all 28 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.