## Facts

- Lester Ray Nichols was convicted in 2003 of traveling with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor.
- After release from prison, Nichols registered as a sex offender in Kansas in 2011.
- In 2012, Nichols left Kansas and moved to Manila, Philippines, without notifying Kansas authorities or updating his Kansas registration.
- Nichols did not register in the Philippines.
- After being taken into custody abroad, Nichols was returned to the United States and charged under SORNA with knowingly failing to register or update a registration.
- Nichols moved to dismiss, arguing SORNA imposed no duty to update Kansas once he left the state; the district court denied the motion and Nichols entered a conditional guilty plea.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed, concluding Kansas remained a “jurisdiction involved” after Nichols’s departure; the Supreme Court granted review to resolve a conflict among circuits.

## Issues

1. Whether SORNA requires a sex offender to update registration in the state he leaves when he moves from that state to a foreign country.
2. Whether a departure state remains a “jurisdiction involved” under SORNA after the offender no longer resides there.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit and held that SORNA did not require Nichols to update his Kansas registration after he left Kansas to live in the Philippines.
- Under SORNA’s text, Kansas ceased to be a “jurisdiction involved” once Nichols no longer “resides” there.
- Because the Philippines is not a SORNA “jurisdiction,” Nichols also had no SORNA duty to appear there to update a registration.
- The Court rejected the government’s theories that Kansas remained “involved” because it had previously registered Nichols or because Nichols experienced two separate “changes” of residence.
- Policy concerns about an apparent gap in notification duties could not justify adding an exit-notice or “deregistration” requirement not enacted by Congress.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory duties under SORNA to register and update are determined by the text requiring registration in “each jurisdiction where the offender resides, is an employee, and is a student,” read in the present tense.
- The duty to report changes by appearing “in person” within three business days applies only to at least one current “jurisdiction involved,” not a former residence jurisdiction.
- Foreign countries are not SORNA “jurisdictions,” so relocation abroad does not, by itself, create a federal obligation to update registration in the departure state.
- Courts may not rewrite SORNA to add a deregistration or departure-notification requirement based on perceived enforcement gaps.

## Conclusion

The Court held that, as written at the time, SORNA did not require a registered sex offender who moved from a U.S. state to a foreign country to update registration in the state he left because that state was no longer a “jurisdiction involved,” and the foreign destination was not a SORNA jurisdiction.


Nichols v. United States, 578 U.S. 104 (2016)