Carr v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
182 federal appellate · 16 district · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 385 later decisions (42 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably State v. Williams (2011), Sherley v. Sebelius (2011)
182 federal appellate · 16 district · 45 state decisions — followed in 11 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 1 U.S.C. § 1 (Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 2250 · 33 U.S.C. § 1365 · 42 U.S.C. § 16913
Relies on Smith v. Doe · United States National Bank v. Independent Insurance Agents of America, Inc. · Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. · United States v. May · United States v. Hinckley
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 385 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“knowingly fai[l] to register or update a registration as required by [SORNA].”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(a) In general A sex offender [defined to include any offender who was convicted of a sex offense] shall register, and keep the registration current, in each jurisdiction where the offender resides, where the offender is an employee, and where the offender is a student.... (b) Initial registration The sex offender shall initially register [either] before completing a sentence of imprisonment with respect to the offense giving rise to the registration requirement; or [for those not sentenced to prison] not later than 3 business days after being sentenced.... (c) Keeping the registration current A sex offender shall [update his registration within] 3 business days after each change of name, residence, employment, or student status [by] appearing] in person in at least 1 jurisdiction involved ... and informing] that jurisdiction of all [relevant] changes.... (d) Initial registration of sex offenders unable to comply with subsection (b) The Attorney General shall have the authority to specify the applicability of the [registration] requirements ... to sex offenders convicted before the enactment of this chapter or its implementation in a particular jurisdiction, and to prescribe rules for the registration of any such sex offenders and for other categories of sex offenders who are unable to comply with subsection (b).”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“There is nothing “anomal[ousj” about such a choice. To the contrary, it is entirely reasonable for Congress to have assigned the Federal Government a special role in ensuring compliance with SORNA’s registration requirements by federal sex offenders-persons who typically would have spent time under federal criminal supervision. It is similarly reasonable for Congress to have given the States primary responsibility for supervising and ensuring compliance among state sex offenders and to have subjected such offenders to federal criminal liability only when, after SORNA’s enactment, they use the channels of interstate commerce in evading a State’s reach. In this regard, it is notable that the federal sex-offender registration laws have, from their inception, expressly relied on state-level enforcement. Indeed, when it initially set national standards for state sex-offender registration programs in 1994, Congress did not include any federal criminal liability. Congress instead conditioned certain federal funds on States’ adoption of “criminal penalties” on any person “required to register under a State program ... who knowingly fails to so register and keep such registration current.” Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, Pub.L. 103-322, Tit. XVII, § 170101(c), 108 Stat.2041, 42 U.S.C. § 14071 (d). Two years later, Congress supplemented state enforcement mechanisms by subjecting to federal prosecution any covered sex offender who”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.