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
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.
This country is going to hell. I used to believe we had rights, the court system are a mess too. Sad to hear from the horses mouth that we are second class citizens. I don’t want to be a sell out, but makes me not want to be in this country no more. going to have to find another place for me and my family to move to. very disturbing news….
A blow to those who’ve remained offense-free for the past 13 years (since this law was enacted). Now only a reformist attorney general can reverse. Or, in Florida, a decision to no longer be one of the 18 SORNA compliant states.
Correct
Does this mean that Ex Post Facto is an approved way to execute justice in the United States?
It means the legislature can delegate that decision to the nation’s top cop.
But you did notice how they assume the system is tiered everywhere by severity. How can they assume that?
Same way they assume the high rate of reoffence
Very sad day. Remove Gundy being a sex offender and it wins 9 to 0. Everything that was argued is completely unconstitutional. Our government does not give one man the power to decide if over 500,000 people can have law be retroactively applied to them. And that same 1 person decide how to punish. This is just absolutely horribly wrong.
I hope congress decides to go after DUI’s next and create a law if you get a DUI you can never drive again. Then let the attorney general decide that it applies to everyone prior that ever had a DUI.
Odviously I do not hope something like this happens but I do think the only reason Sorna and the rest of sex offender law has upheld, is because it uses the word sex offender. Once sex offender is removed, the courts can see clearly how unconstitutional.
Ouch….
This shows how sad our government is and has been for years. All the supreme Court justices 100% know the execution of granting the attorney general this power violates our constitution. That SORNA itself is unconstitutional, but especially for preact offenders. Yet in today’s government, congress and scotus, the constitution is not important.
They chose today to take the easy we out and stated it clearly in the opinion. Today is a sad day in so many ways.
This is exactly what I expected, and another reason to show that I have no normal life to live. My life is pathetic, I just cant take this anymore. I died back in 2002 for 8 minutes, I swear I wish they hadn’t saved my life, because my life is terrible. It is the first thing I think of when I wake up, and the last thing I think of when I go to bed. I am haunted by nightmares. I lost all desire to fight. I have a girlfriend in Colombia that I cant visit, She cant visit me,( hard for her to get a visa) We cant get married because of the AWA. Lonliness is a horrible thing.