United States v. Ambert’s Empirical Analysis
561 F.3d 1202 · 2009
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 7 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably State v. Williams (2011), United States v. Gould (2009)
45 federal appellate · 7 district · 8 state decisions
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.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2250 · 18 U.S.C. § 247 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 16901 (Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006) · 42 U.S.C. § 16911 · 42 U.S.C. § 16913 · 42 U.S.C. § 16914 · 42 U.S.C. § 7409
Relies on United States v. Lopez · Caminetti v. United States · Mistretta v. United States · M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Washington v. Glucksberg
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) In general A sex offender 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. For initial registration purposes only, a sex offender shall also register in the jurisdiction in which convicted if such jurisdiction is different form the jurisdiction of residence.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Court is satisfied that Congress has provided the Attorney General with “intelligible principles” in [SORNA]. Congress has undeniably provided the Attorney General with a policy framework in § 16901 to guide his exercise of discretion under § 16913(d); and it has made a series of legislative judgments in §§ 16911, 16913, 16914, and 2250 that constrict the Attorney General’s discretion to a narrow and defined category.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an examination of § 16913 and § 2250 makes the interstate focus abundantly clear,” and”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.