October Term 2015 · Docket 15-5238
Does federal law require sex offenders to update registration while abroad?
Nichols argues federal law lacks power to mandate updates while overseas. The government claims the duty to keep records current persists.
Verified source milestones
- — 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.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Nichols' lawyer argued federal law did not apply to overseas moves before recently.
The government's lawyer argued the duty to update records is continuous.
Justice Roberts asked if the law leaves unregistration to states but not registration.
Justice Sotomayor questioned if the government used the wrong legal basis for extradition.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 10-36 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 10-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-8 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 10-14 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 10-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 20-30 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 20-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 12-14 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 12-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 18-22 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 18-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 28-44 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 28-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 50-4 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 50-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 10-12 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 10-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 18-28 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 18-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 40-42 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 40-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 52-4 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 52-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 14-14 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 14-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 18-22 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 18-22
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Nichols moved to the Philippines. He did not update his U.S. registration. The government charged him with a federal crime. Nichols claims federal law only applies when he returns. The government says the duty to update follows him.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 10-36 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 10-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-8 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-8
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 1, 2016.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
What each side wants
Nichols wants the Court to rule that federal law does not apply while he is abroad.
The government wants the Court to rule that the duty to update registration persists overseas.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 10-36 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 10-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-8 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-8
What each side says
Nichols argues federal law only requires registration upon return to the United States.
The government argues the duty to keep registration current applies regardless of location.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 10-36 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 10-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-8 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-8
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor asked if the government chose the wrong law for extradition.
Justice Ginsburg asked if the case involves both federal and state requirements.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 10-14 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 10-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 20-30 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 20-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 12-14 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 12-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 18-22 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 18-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 28-44 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 28-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 50-4 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 50-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 10-12 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 10-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 18-28 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 18-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 40-42 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 40-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 52-4 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 52-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 14-14 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 14-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 18-22 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 18-22
Why it matters
This case defines the geographic reach of federal sex offender registration laws. It determines whether the government can prosecute offenders for failing to update records while living abroad. The outcome shapes federal enforcement power over citizens in foreign countries.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 10-36 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 10-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-8 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-8
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 Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 10-14 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 10-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 20-30 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 20-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 12-14 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 12-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 18-22 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 18-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 28-44 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 28-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 50-4 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 50-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 10-12 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 10-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 18-28 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 18-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 40-42 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 40-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 52-4 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 52-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 14-14 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 14-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 18-22 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 18-22
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 10-36 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 10-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-8 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 10-36 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 10-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-8 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-8
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.