U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 151— CHILD PROTECTION AND SAFETY › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION › Part Part A— Sex Offender Registration and Notification

42 U.S.C. § 16925

Transferred

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

[transferred]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases, 2007–2017 · leading case: Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr. Servs. v. Doe, 94 A.3d 791 (Md. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr. Servs. v. Doe, 94 A.3d 791 (Md. 2014). · cites it 19× “Although we need not engage in any constitutional preemption analysis, we note that the federal statute itself does not purport to “preempt the field” of sex offender registration, and in fact, 42 U.S.C. § 16925 (d) specifically provides that “[t]he provisions of this subchapter…”
In the Interest of J.B., 107 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2014). · cites it 3× “42 U.S.C. § 16925 (a); Tr. Ct. Op. at 8 n.”
United States v. Anthony Kebodeaux, 687 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 2012). · cites it 6× “See 42 U.S.C. § 16925 (a). And § 2250 itself allows an affirmative defense if “uncontrollable circumstances”SSwhich, according to the government, would include a state’s failure to collect registration dataSSprevent an individual from complying with its registration requirements.”
United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459 (4th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 16925 (a). Implementation requires, for example, that the State "maintain a jurisdiction-wide sex offender registry conforming to the requirements of [SORNA]," id.”
United States v. Johnson, 632 F.3d 912 (5th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 16925 (a). 7 . 42 U.S.C. § 16924 .”
State v. Letalien, 2009 ME 130 (Me. 2009). · cites it 2× “2009), that Act provides: When evaluating whether a jurisdiction has substantially implemented this title, the Attorney General shall consider whether the jurisdiction is unable to substantially implement this title because of a demonstrated inability to implement certain…”
Standley v. Town of Woodfin, 650 S.E.2d 618 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “As a condition of receiving certain law enforcement funding, 42 U.S.C. § 16925 (a) (Supp. 2007), this Act imposes various obligations on "jurisdictions" with respect to convicted sex offenders.”
United States v. DiTomasso, 621 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 16925 . In addition, it directly imposed new federal registration obligations on sex offenders and provided for federal enforcement of those obligations.”
United States v. Hernandez, 615 F. Supp. 2d 601 (E.D. Mich. 2009). · cites it 4× “42 U.S.C. § 16925 (a). However, Defendant’s use of the word “requires” in his description of the statutory mandate is misleading because states have the option of not implementing or creating SORNA compliant registries.”
United States v. Anthony Ross, 848 F.3d 1129 (D.C. Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 16925 (a). Accordingly, the Attorney General developed guidelines to “assist[] .”
United States v. Ditomasso, 552 F. Supp. 2d 233 (D.R.I. 2008). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 16925 (a). Therefore, this Court will only address Defendant’s Commerce Clause argument as it relates to the individual component of SORNA.”
Starkey v. Oklahoma Dep't of Corr., 305 P.3d 1004 (Okla. 2013). “2011) 42 U.S.C. § 16925 . OSORA was amended on November 1, 2007 to substantially comply with the Adam Walsh Act.”
Show all 40 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.