Legal Document

Cite as: 560 U. S. ____ (2010) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES v. JUVENILE MALE ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT No. 09–940 Decided June 7, 2010 PER CURIAM. In 2005, respondent was charged in the United States District Court for of Montana with juvenile delinquency under Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (FJDA), 18 U.S. C. §5031 et seq. Respondent eventually pleaded “true” to knowingly engaging sexual acts a person 12 years age, which would have been crime §§2241(c) and 1153(a) if committed by an adult. accepted respon dent’s plea adjudged him delinquent. The court sen tenced two years’ official detention delinquent supervision until his 21st birthday. also ordered spend first six months prerelease center abide center’s conditions residency. 2006, Congress enacted Sex Offender Registra tion Notification (SORNA), 120 Stat. 590, 42 §16901 With respect offenders, SORNA requires individuals who adjudicated certain serious sex offenses register keep their registrations current each jurisdiction where they live, work, go school. §§16911(8); 16913. February 2007, Attorney General issued interim rule specifying that SORNA’s requirements “apply all including offenders convicted offense registration is required prior enactment [SORNA].” 72 Fed. Reg. 8897 (codified at 28 CFR §72.3 (2009)). July revoked respondent’s 2 supervision, finding had failed comply program. sentenced additional 6-month term detention, be followed period Government, invoking provisions, argued should as offender, least duration supervi sion. As “special conditions” offender current. App. Pet. Cert. 39a. Ninth Circuit vacated sex-offender-registration Court’s order. 590 F.3d 924 (2010). Appeals determined “retroactive application provision covering were delinquents because commission before pas sage violates Ex Post Facto Clause Constitution.” Id., 927. thus held “SORNA’s may not applied retroactively [FJDA].” 928. asks us grant certiorari review Circuit’s determination FJDA enactment. Before we can address question, however, must resolve threshold issue mootness. Circuit, chal lenged only requiring offender. But on May 2, 2008, expired, he no longer subject those conditions. such, this case likely moot unless re spondent show decision invalidating offender-registration 3 sufficiently redress “collateral conse quences adequate meet Article III’s injury-in-fact quirement.” Spencer Kemna, 523 1, 14 (1998). Perhaps most potential quenc[e]” might remedied judgment spondent’s favor requirement main registered law. (“By time appeals’ decision, become Montana, continues today.” 29.) We know whether favorable make it “could remove name identifying information from registry.” Ibid. Therefore, certify following question Supreme pursuant Rule Appellate Proce dure 15 (2009): Is duty remain fender law contingent upon valid ity now-expired federal juve nile-supervision order see Mont. Code Ann. §§46–23– 502(6)(b), 41–5–1513(1)(c) (2005); State Villanueva, 328 135, 138–140, 118 P.3d 179, 181–182 §46–23–502(9)(b) (2009), or independent unaffected validity invalidity juvenile-supervision conditions, §46–23–502(10) (2009); 2007 Laws ch. 483, §31, p. 2185? respectfully request accept our certified question. court’s answer will help determine pre sents live controversy, there controlling appellate constitutional provision, statute point. Proc. 15(3). understand 4 wish reformulate 15(6)(a)(iii). Clerk directed transmit copy opinion, briefs filed case, list counsel appearing matter along names addresses. See Rules 15(5) (6)(a)(iv). Further proceedings are reserved pending receipt response Montana. It so ordered.

Classification Label: 1