11-1329 U.S. v. Kendrick

Listen to this article

SORNA
Constitutionality

SORNA’s registration requirements do not exceed Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause.

“We require a ‘compelling reason’ to overrule circuit precedent. Santos v. United States, 461 F.3d 886, 891 (7th Cir. 2006) (quoting McClain v. Retail Food Emp’rs Joint Pension Plan, 413 F.3d 582, 586 (7th Cir. 2005)). Kendrick has presented none. At best, he has articulated a solid defense of the arguments that we rejected in Vasquez, Sanders, or both. This does not amount to a compelling reason to revisit two cases that we decided only one year ago. See Guerrero v. Holder, 407 Fed. Appx. 964, 966 (7th Cir. 2011) (stating that ‘[s]imply rehashing . . . previously considered arguments . . . does not provide a compelling reason to [overrule circuit precedent]’). We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of Kendrick’s motion to dismiss the indictment.”

Affirmed.

11-1329 U.S. v. Kendrick

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Randa, J., Bauer, J.

Full Text