The district court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed an indictment under the Adam Walsh Act because Congress was unauthorized to enact the statute under the Interstate Commerce Clause. The case is United States v. Powers. Doubtful it would apply to Indian Country, but interesting nonetheless.
Update — Dec. 17, 2008 — This case, like one or two others, is likely an aberration. It is far more likely than not that the Adam Walsh Act is constitutional. For more information, see this website.
Turtle Talk 
Back to the drawing board… Good thing in the legal environment, absolute endings aren’t always the case (e.g., “…declared unconstitutional…dismissed…indictment”).
~Arguments abound~
In this case, it appears that good intentions (Adam Walsh Act) just jumped the gun. Unfortunately, despite the fact that sex offenders have most likely, at one point in time (probably in their youth) been offended too, as adults, if good adult choices aren’t made, then individuals (sex offenders) must realize that adult repercussions will be the result of bad choices.
Even w/a snag in the road, with this particular case, my two cents: I think the snags will be worked out eventually and all states will have something in place that will work the way it’s supposed to.
The Adam walsh Act is a good idea, but needs some refinement!
The Act or statute being “retroactive” sets a president which may at sometime come back to haunt us. those who have violated other laws could have their sentences revised many years after serving out their terms.
Thus, let’s say someone convicted of armed robbery is sentenced to three years inprison and two years parole. Then, 18 years after serving out his time and parole they decide to pass a revised statute that anyone who commits such an offence would also have to have three years counceling along with the parole. “RETROACTIVE” twenty years. The convicted person , although finished his parole several years prior to the revised statute, would now have to conform to the new law and commit to three years of counceling! In effect, he would have been resentenced and subjected to “Double Jepoardy.!” We must be very carefull!!
I guess the real crux to the argument is what the Supreme Court has already looked at once, is by declaring this act as “non-punitive”, but are you kidding me, ostracizing someone who has paid for thier crime, which might have been morally apprehensive,nonetheless seems to be quite counter productive to say the least. Commerce clause, contract clause, double jeopardy, ex post facto, the list of civil liberties affected are endless. If putting all of someones personal info i.e., address, telephone numbers, travel routes to work, pictures, license plate and discription of all vehicles driven, plus add DNA testing, fingerprinting, reporting every 90 days, getting permission to go on vacation, then requiring this for LIFE is not “punitive” to the (s)ex-offender and more importantly thier families, then I’m living on another planet. Alaska just ruled that this law is ex post facto and will not apply to those sentanced prior the the enactment of the law, and various states are following suit…