United States v. Mujahid, No. 11-30276 (8-27-15)(Christen with Wallace and Wardlaw).  Can the federal sexual assault statutes reach into state or local jail facilities housing federal inmates?  Yes, holds the 9th, against a facial challenge.  The defendant was arrested for being a prohibited possessor for a firearm.  While facing this charge, he was held in a state facility (Alaska) with which the US Marshals contracted for housing.  While being held, he sexually assaulted fellow inmates.  He was then charged with a various federal sexual assault offenses (2241, 2242, and 2244).  He was convicted of four counts of aggravated sex abuse at trial.  On appeal, the defendant renewed his argument that federal jurisdiction was not proper under Article I of the Constitution and the 10th Amendment. Police power, especially under the statute's 2006 amendments, rested with the states.   The 9th upheld federal jurisdiction.  There is a federal interest in protecting federal inmates, and it falls squarely within the "necessity and proper" clause of Congressional power.  Such shared federal jurisdiction with the states is proper and commonplace.  A court, moreover, as a matter of law, may determine whether a state faculty at which federal inmates are housed, are being so held under a contract or by agreement with a federal agency.

 

The decision is here:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/08/27/11-30276.pdf