Decision in Gundy v. United States
Holding: The judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit that 34 U. S. C. §20913(d) – which requires the U.S. attorney general to apply the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act’s registration requirements as soon as feasible to offenders convicted before the statute’s enactment – is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority is affirmed.
Judgment: Affirmed, 5-3, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on June 20, 2019. Justice Kagan announced the judgment of the Supreme Court and delivered an opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor joined. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas joined. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Source: ScotusBlog
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Can’t Gundy appeal to the Supreme Court now?
Joe123 – This was a Supreme Court decision.
@Joe123
First it was the Reynolds case and now it was the Gundy case. If you read Kagan’s opinion, she said that while the Gundy case dismisses the relevance of the Reynolds case, the argument made in Gundy wasn’t enough due to technicalities in the wording I believe. Personally, I think her opinion was a ” rehashing ” of the opinion of the Reynold’s case. What is interesting to me about the Gundy outcome is that both Thomas and Roberts are now viewing this matter differently. Perhaps they see the ” potential constitutional outcome ” – that Gorsuch outlined in his dissent – which I thought was very constitutionally clear. What it also interesting is that while Alito sided with the Kagan opinion, he is open to another different view if one so happens to present itself in the future.
Whether it is another sex offender case or not, i don’t think this non delegation issue isn’t over yet. Gorsuch knows that his dissent persuaded Thomas and Roberts and border lined Alito. If he can get kavanaugh on board, he may want another crack at another case involving the non delegation. It may well turn out to a 5-4 outcome next time, if Gorsuch has his way.
There is a major gold-plated lining to this cloud. This was a technical decision relating to separation of powers that is only tangentially related to our cause. Even if SCOTUS had overturned the lower court, Congress would have simply revised the law to require retroactive registration. It would have been an ephemeral victory.
However, reading the dissent by Gorsuch, Roberts and Thomas (!!?!) it’s clear that they believe that SORNA negatively affects the “liberty interests” of those whom the statute requires to register. I think this is a good sign of things to come.
So what about contract law? I entered into a contract with the state of Florida that if I pled no contest to an attempted crime, I would be subject to penalties and stipulations ordered by a judge and the state would also abide by that decision. Now, the state is continously ignoring that contract. This should make said contract void and I should be a non- felon. I understand that it was a criminal court, but a contract is a contract and without laws enforcing them, contracts are shit.
Also, the order designating me is one page. The first paragraph designates and the second says no community or public notification. It is then signed by the judge. If this order is invalid, then I am not a designee. If it is valid, they need to get me the hell off the damn website and fix my driver’s license.
I’ll be glad to email the order to any attorney or f.a.c. personnel who would like to see it.
Jim
My case is pre October 1995
This logic should apply to anyone who took a plea.
Also, I am stating strenuously, that the state LOSES its right to say that ignorance of the law is not an excuse because how can a person possibly know what laws in the future could be retroactively applied to them.
Why has no-one argued this?
This is simply wrong. I can’t help but note who decided this case….known liberals. The dissenters who know it’s wrong are conservatives on the Court.
I’m confused; does that mean the state can impose restrictions BEFORE they pass the actual law? How is that not unconstitutional?
So, According to this, We’re stuck on the Registery forever ???. Every other law in this country, Starts once it’s inacted !!! This is the only “Retroactive” law I ever heard of !!. I hate Florida !! Can’t wait to get outta here !!!.
No – this was a federal case, not florida. This had to do with the Delegation doctrine.