The incredible ordinariness of federal penalties for inactivity

Wisconsin Law Review

Volumn 2012, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 841-870

  Yung, Corey Rayburn ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA COLLEGE OF LAW   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84865024356     PISSN: 0043650X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (62)

1. Randy E. Barnett, Commandeering the People: Why the Individual Health Insurance Mandate Is Unconstitutional, 5 NYU J.L. & LIBERTY 581, 606 (2010).
2. Florida v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 648 F.3d 1235, 1288 (11th Cir. 2011).
3. JOSHUA DRESSLER, UNDERSTANDING CRIMINAL LAW 102 (5th ed. 2009) ("In essence, the criminal law distinguishes between an act that affirmatively causes harm, on the one hand, and the failure of the bystander to take measures to prevent harm, on the other hand.").
4. Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109- 248, 120 Stat. 587 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 16901-16991 (2006)).
5. See, e.g., United States v. Gould, 526 F. Supp. 2d 538, 541 548-49 (D. Md. 2007).
6. See, e.g., United States v. Kueker, 352 F. App'x 242, 246 (10th Cir. 2009) ("To the extent Mr. Kueker argues that [the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act] SORNA also violated the Ex Post Facto Clause by increasing the punishment for his earlier sex offense, this court has already made clear that SORNA does not punish the underlying sex offense . . ..")
7. United States v. Young, 585 F.3d 199, 205 (5th Cir. 2009) ("SORNA's Title 18 provisions . . . can punish Young only for current conduct-foreclosing any ex post facto claim.").
8. See, e.g., United States v. Pendleton, 636 F.3d 78, 87-88 (3d Cir. 2011) (finding that the federal statute for failure to register as a sex offender is a necessary and proper execution of Congress's commerce power)
9. United States v. Yelloweagle, 643 F.3d 1275, 1288-89 (10th Cir. 2011) (denying arguments that Congress lacks authority to criminalize failure to register as a sex offender based on the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause)
10. United States v. Guzman, 591 F.3d 83, 91 (2d Cir. 2010) (rejecting challenges based on the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Commerce Clause to the federal law of failure to register as a sex offender)
11. United States v. Howell, 552 F.3d 709, 715 (8th Cir. 2009) ("[A]n analysis of §16913 under the broad authority granted to Congress through both the commerce clause and the enabling necessary and proper clause reveals the statute is constitutionally authorized.").
12. See generally JONATHAN SIMON, GOVERNING THROUGH CRIME: HOW THE WAR ON CRIME TRANSFORMED AMERICAN DEMOCRACY AND CREATED A CULTURE OF FEAR 262 (2007) ("The war on drugs offered great political potential to Nixon because it linked the New Left political base to its broader youth culture penumbra and, hrough that, to classic themes of organized crime and corruption.").
13. Joshua Dressler, Some Brief Thoughts (Mostly Negative) about "Bad Samaritan" Laws, 40 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 971, 975 (2000) ("In limited circumstances, a person's failure to act-an omission-constitutes a breach of a common law duty to act.")
14. WAYNE R. LAFAVE, SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW § 6.2 (2d ed. 2003).
15. Benjamin v. United States, 554 F. Supp. 82, 86 (E.D.N.Y. 1982) ("At that stage in the investigation, the warrant compels arrest and, unless it is retracted by the court, the arresting officer who chooses to ignore its command operates at some personal risk.").
16. See, e.g., United States v. Gould, 526 F. Supp. 2d 538, 549 (D. Md. 2007) ("Indeed, only upon an offender's failure to register under SORNA, a new offense, do the enhanced penalties apply. Accordingly, SORNA does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause."(citation omitted)).
17. United States v. Cardenas, No. 07-80108-Cr-Hurley/Vitunac, 2007 U.S. Dist LEXIS 88803, at *27 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2007).
18. See United States v. Ambert, 561 F.3d 1202, 1206-07 (11th Cir. 2009) (allowing prosecution for federal failure to register based upon interstate travel that occurred a year and half after the failure to register occurred). Objections that prosecutions under § 2250(a)(2)(B) are actually regulating activity related to inactivity (thus providing no support for the thesis of the Essay) are addressed in Part III.A.
19. See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. §§ 78m(b)(2), (4)-(7), 78ff(a) (2006) (containing the accounting and record keeping provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act)
20. U.S.C. § 2257 (2006) (requiring record keeping under the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act)
21. C.F.R. §§ 240.17a-2 to -4 (2011)(containing various record-keeping rules under the Securities and Exchange Commission).
22. Connection Distrib. Co. v. Holder, 557 F.3d 321, 326-30 (6th Cir. 2009).
23. See Free Speech Coal. v. Holder, 729 F. Supp. 2d 691, 696 (E.D. Pa. 2010).
24. Kenner v. Martimer, No. 7:08-73-KKC, 2008 U.S. Dist LEXIS 44912, at *7 (E.D. Ky. June 6, 2008) ("[R]egulations do not merely prohibit prisoners from possessing weapons, but they must act affirmatively to ensure that their cells remain free of any contraband.").
25. See MARKUS DIRK DUBBER, VICTIMS IN THE WAR ON CRIME: THE USE AND ABUSE OF VICTIMS' RIGHTS 32 (2002) ("In general, the offense of possession-whether of drugs, of guns, or of anything else-has emerged as the policing device of choice in the war on crime.").
26. United States v. Culpepper, 834 F.2d 879, 881 (10th Cir. 1987).
27. See, e.g., Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 372-73 (2003).
28. United States v. King, 632 F.3d 646, 647 (2011). There were other guns at issue in the case, but to simplify the discussion, I have only included references to the Hi-Point rifle which was found in King's girlfriend's car.
29. Id. at 651 (quoting United States v. Lopez, 372 F.3d 1207, 1211 (10th Cir. 2004)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
30. See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. §§ 801-971 (2006) (containing the federal law prohibiting possession of illegal drugs).
31. 545 U.S. 1 (2005).
32. 18 U.S.C. § 483 (2006) (receipt of counterfeit obligations or securities)
33. United States v. Shepardson, 167 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir. 1999).
34. See, e.g., Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 817 (1999) (holding the jury "need not always decide unanimously which of several possible sets of underlying brute facts make up a particular element").
35. United States v. Kozeny applied this concept to the overt act element. 667 F.3d 122, 131 (2d Cir. 2011).
36. United States v. Benussi, 216 F. Supp. 2d 299, 318 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)("Accordingly, the Court holds that, when a general objective of a conspiracy is economic gain, the knowing receipt of the anticipated economic benefits of the charged conspiracy by a conspirator satisfies the overt act requirement for purposes of the statute of limitations.").
37. Yes, that Darryl Strawberry. Darryl Strawberry, BASEBALLREFERENCE. COM, http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/strawda01.shtml (last visited March 27, 2012).
38. United States v. Strawberry, 892 F. Supp. 519, 520-21 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
39. FED. R. CIV. P. 45 (describing the requirements and procedure of obtaining a subpoena of a witness).
40. see also Adam Liptak, Terror Witness: A Life Ruined, INT'L HERALD TRIB. (Fr.) Aug. 20, 2004, at 1 (discussing the long term incarceration of persons involved in terrorism cases under material witness warrants).
41. See, e.g., United States v. Bustos, No. 10-10016, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8335 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2011) (defendant failed to disclose condition relevant to receipt of Supplemental Security Income).
42. See, e.g., United States v. Hardy, No. 09-60890, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7390 (5th Cir. Apr. 11, 2011) (defendant failed to disclose ongoing personal injury lawsuit during bankruptcy proceedings).
43. See, e.g., United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277, 283-85 (1943).
44. United States v. Leslie, 658 F.3d 140, 141 (2d Cir. 2011).
45. Id. at 143 (quoting United States v. Eppolito, 543 F.3d 25, 49 (2d Cir. 2008)) (internal quotation markes omitted).
46. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 696 n.36 (1972).
47. Christopher Mark Curenton, The Past, Present, and Future of 18 U.S.C. § 4: An Exploration of the Federal Misprision of Felony Statute, 55 ALA. L. REV. 183, 183-86 (2003).
48. See, e.g., Brief of Amici Curiae Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, et al. in Support of Petitioners at 3
49. Florida v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 648 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2011) (No.11-400) ("Our nation's Founders never envisioned unfettered spending by the Congress, and when the political branches prove incapable of policing themselves, it is the solemn duty of this Court to check their constitutional excesses.").
50. Carl Wilson Mullis, III, Misprision of Felony: A Reappraisal, 23 EMORY L.J. 1095, 1101 (1974)
51. David Welna, Opponents Threaten Court Battle on Health Mandate, NPR (Jan. 18, 2010), http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId= 122693523(quoting Randy Barnett, Georgetown University Law Professor) (internal quotation marks omitted).
52. Randy Barnett, The New York Times Editorializes on Last Week's Senate Judiciary Hearings on the Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate, VOLOKH CONSPIRACY (Feb. 12, 2011, 1:01 AM), http://volokh.com/2011/02/12/the-new- yorktimes-editorializes-on-last-weeks-senate-judiciary-hearings-on-the- constitutionality-ofthe-individual-mandate/
53. Florida v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 648 F.3d 1235, 1288 (11th Cir. 2011).
54. RANDY BARNETT, NATHANIEL STEWART & TODD GAZIANO, HERITAGE FOUND., LEGAL MEMORANDUM NO. 49, WHY THE PERSONAL MANDATE TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE IS UNPRECEDENTED AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL (2009), available at http://www.heritage.org/ Research/Reports/2009/12/Why-the-Personal-Mandate-to-Buy-Health-Insurance-Is- Unprecedented-and-Unconstitutional
55. Randy E. Barnett, Turning Citizens into Subjects: Why the Health Insurance Mandate Is Unconstitutional , 62 MERCER L. REV. 608, 608 (2011) ("I can prove, however, that an economic mandate like this one is unprecedented. If this mandate had ever happened before, everyone reading thispassage would know all the contracts the federal government requires them to make, upon pain of a penalty enforced by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). No reader, however, can recite any such mandate and neither could any reader's parents or grandparents because this has never been done before.").
56. Randy Barnett, The Individual Mandate Is Unprecedented? So What?, VOLOKH CONSPIRACY (Aug. 25, 2010, 8:07 AM), http://volokh.com/2010/08/25/theindividual- mandate-is-unprecedented-so-what.But
57. see Gerard Magliocca, The Private Action Requirement, CONCURRING OPINIONS (Aug. 20, 2010, 5:10 PM), http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/08/ the-private-action-requirement.html.
58. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 558-59 (1995) ("Congress' commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce." (citations omitted)).
59. See, e.g., Michael Gorr, The Actus Reus Requirement: A Qualified Defense, 10 CRIM. JUST. ETHICS 11 (1991)
60. see also Jeffrie G. Murphy, Gorr on Actus Reus, 10 CRIM. JUST. ETHICS 18 (1991) (responding to Michael Gorr's article).
61. Thomas More Law Ctr. v. Obama, 651 F.3d 529, 548-49 (6th Cir. 2011).
62. See Jack M. Balkin, Commerce, 109 MICH. L. REV. 1, 47 (2010).