October Term 2009 · Docket 08-1301

Does a sex offender's failure to register violate the law if the offense predates the statute?

The dispute centers on whether a person convicted before a new registration law applies must register under that law.

Official caption
Carr v. United States
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    the side that brought the case's counsel argued ordinary words should receive their ordinary meaning.

    The government's counsel argued the statute targets people who move after conviction.

    Justices questioned whether the statute's sequence dictates a temporal order.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case involves a man convicted of a sex offense before a federal registration law passed. He failed to register after the law took effect. The government charged him under the new statute. He argues the law does not apply to his past conviction.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 24, 2010.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the conviction overturned because the law did not exist when he committed the offense.

The government wants the conviction upheld because the failure to register occurred after the law passed.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues ordinary words in the statute imply a current requirement to register.

The government argues the statute's purpose is to catch offenders who move after conviction.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Scalia asked if the statute's purpose covers an infant's transportation.

Justice Breyer asked if the statute aims to get unregistered people to register.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines who must register under federal sex offender laws. It clarifies the scope of criminal liability for past convictions. It affects how courts interpret statutory timing requirements.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON