No. 21-7599

Neil Timothy Aho v. United States

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2022-04-12
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-rights commerce-clause congressional-authority due-process enumerated-powers federalism necessary-and-proper-clause statutory-interpretation subject-matter-jurisdiction tenth-amendment
Key Terms:
FirstAmendment HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2022-05-26
Question Presented (from Petition)

Whether Section 2252 of Title 18 of the United States Code ("Section 2252"
or the "Statute") forming the gravamen of the charges in the Indictment
lodged against Petitioner is void ab initio and no law at all on the ground
Congress has no authority, direct or implied, to enact the Statute?

Whether the lower courts lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate
this criminal proceeding because the charging Statute is void ab initio ?

Whether the lower courts failed to fulfill the independent and mandatory
duty imposed on every Article III Court to confirm the existence of
subject-matter jurisdiction prior to deciding any other aspect of this case?

Whether Congress lacks power outside of the Federal Enclave without
ratification of an authorizing Amendment under Article V of the Constitution
to promulgate, by expression or implication, new crimes beyond the ambit of
the "Four Felonies" enumerated in Articles I and III of the Constitution?

Whether the enactment of Section 2252, in the guise of regulating interstate
commerce and in contravention of fundamental principles of federalism and
dual sovereignty, impermissibly intrudes upon the broad residuum of
sovereign power reserved to the States upon joining the Union and to the
people pursuant to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution?

Whether the Commerce Clause can be used to expand (with or without the
Necessary and Proper Clause) the power to punish beyond the ambit of the
Four Felonies enumerated in Articles I and III?

Whether the historical and structural context of the Commerce Clause,
including the original intent and meaning as interpreted and applied in
Dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence, should be interpreted and applied
consistently across the Commerce Power corpus juris and to this case to
strike down laws like Section 2252 directly contravening the original intent
and meaning of the Commerce Clause?

Whether the Eleventh Circuit misapprehended and/or ignored the Notice of
Appeal raising these questions of public importance separate and distinct
from the Request for Issuance of a Certificate of Appealability?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether Section 2252 of Title 18 of the United States Code is void ab initio and no law at all on the ground Congress has no authority to enact the Statute

Docket Entries

2022-05-31
Petition DENIED.
2022-05-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/26/2022.
2022-05-05
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2022-04-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 12, 2022)

Attorneys

Neil Timothy Aho
Neil Timothy Aho — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent