Gundy – What does it mean for us?

Many people have been confused by the Gundy decision released by the Supreme Court of the United States today, so I wanted to circulate a simplified summary of what Gundy is all about and what it means for people on the registry and, specifically, what it means for people on the registry in Florida.

Gundy was a “sex offender” case because Herman Gundy was a person required to register as a sex offender, but it’s not so much about the registry as it is about something technical called the “non-delegation doctrine”.

So, here’s the background… Herman Gundy committed a sexual offense in 2004.The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) came out in 2006 and established federal requirements for registration, such as which offenses fall into which tier and which tiers have to register for how long.

At the time Congress passed SORNA, instead of announcing that SORNA applies to everyone, they left it up to the Attorney General to decide if, when, or how people convicted of sex offenses prior to the enactment of SORNA would be subjected to it. The Attorney General (not Congress) decided it would apply retroactively.

Gundy didn’t register and was arrested for violating SORNA. He argued that he shouldn’t be subjected to SORNA because Congress didn’t have the authority to delegate the decision as to whether SORNA applies to pre-SORNA offenders. In more technical terms; that would be an unconstitutional delegation of Congressional authority to the executive branch.

Gundy’s argument was that the “delegation” violates the “Non-Delegation Doctrine”, which says that one branch of government can’t authorize another to exercise the power or function which it is constitutionally authorized to exercise itself. In other words; it’s kind of like allowing the fox to watch the hen house. How can you allow the person that enforces the laws be the same person that decides whether the laws are applicable? (Note: a point that some of the Justices seemed to get during oral arguments) It’s why we have separation of powers.

So the issue that the Supreme Court took up was the application of the “non-delegation doctrine”, not so much the validity of sex offender laws.

Still, had Gundy won, the decision would have meant that the Attorney General didn’t have the discretion to determine that SORNA applied to pre-2006 registrants and pre-2006 people who were arrested for violating SORNA (such as Gundy) would have gotten relief. It would have benefited those with pre-2006 cases who were charged with violating SORNA (not Florida registration laws – that’s something different).

Looking forward, if Gundy had won, Congress could have just turned around and said ‘we’ll take the discretion away from the Attorney General and decide ourselves whether SORNA applies retroactively and we decide that it does’. Or they could have decided it didn’t. Regardless, I guess we won’t know.

While we all hoped that since Gundy was the first case in a while with a “registered party”, that the Supreme Court would take the opportunity to speak up and correct some grievous wrongs done to persons required to register. They didn’t – but it wasn’t so much about the registry as it was about the non-delegation doctrine.

So more specifically; what does this mean for persons required to register in Florida? Really nothing. While SORNA has three tiers and provides for removal after 15 or 25 years (for Tiers 1 and 2), Florida has no tier system and lifetime registration for all. Even if the SORNA minimums were not determined to be applicable to pre-2006 persons, the Florida requirements exceed SORNA by miles. Had Florida’s requirements been less onerous than SORNA we potentially could have seen some relief, but in our case we had none coming regardless of the outcome of Gundy.

And what does this mean for our current lawsuits in Florida? Nothing good or bad. We fight on!

 

 


Discover more from Florida Action Committee

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

32 thoughts on “Gundy – What does it mean for us?

  • June 21, 2019

    Thanks for explaining that !! I feel a little better now !!. Still can’t wait to move out of this EVIL State tho ;!!. Thinking Utah !! After 10 years, According to them, I won’t have to register ! And I’m at my 10 year mark this year !!!. I can’t believe how EVIL this country is !?!?!?. Rule is, Pay your debt to Society, Then be allowed to get a 2nd Chance !! But that rule applies to EVERYONE , EXCEPT A SEX OFFENDER !!! If , that’s not wrong, Nothing is !!!!!;.

    Reply
    • June 21, 2019

      Here’s another thought…
      Many states are not SORNA compliant.
      It doesn’t matter if it’s applied retroactively or not if your state doesn’t apply it at all.

      Reply
      • June 21, 2019

        Florida is one of just 18 states that are SORNA compliant. Others apparently found that the Federal matching funds aren’t worth the cost of implementation.

        Reply
        • June 21, 2019

          The penalty was a reduction in Byrne JAG Grants to states by like 25% for not properly implementing SORNA, but the year before SORNA went into effect the Byrne Fund pool of money was cut by 80%. So if you implemented SORNA completely then you received 20% of the money you got the year before, and if you didn’t then you got 15%. Either way you lost at least 80% so what’s the incentive to comply, especially if the price of a larger registry and retroactive registration even approaches your Byrne payout?

          You only see 18 states in compliance because the rest looked at the cost of full implementation, balked, called their senators and had the penalty reduced by diverting that Byrne Grant money to another program.

          Reply
          • June 21, 2019

            This is very telling and a reminder that at the Federal level, we want our senators and representatives to know that these Byrne grants are a waste of Federal taxpayer dollars!

            Reply
        • June 22, 2019

          Well, Florida figured out they can get a huge amount of federal money if they falsely inflate their registry with thousands not in the state or deceased. The federal government is not monitoring the integrity of Florida’s FDLE, legislature or registry, so the money continues to pour in for dead people and those off the registry in their home state.

          Reply
    • June 21, 2019

      While I understand your position, I would like to point out that when you state that you hate this country, you are painting everyone with the same brush and you make it difficult for those of us that are on the fence to support your stance. I love my country, but I don’t like everything that is occurring. I have fought for it and when I see someone say that they hate this country, I am no longer interested in what they are saying because in essence, I am being told that if I don’t agree, I am hated. At that point, all I am interested in saying is that if you hate it here so much, then feel free to leave.

      Reply
  • June 21, 2019

    Thank you, for that explanation ,but how does Gundy effect us here in Michigan , the federal District Court gave the Michigan Legislature until August 21st. to revise the registry like they were ordered to do 3 years ago by the 6th Circuit, which SCOTUS refused to hear there by agreeing with the 6th circuit that Michigan’s SORNA is Punishment and Unconstitutional to pre-SORNA registrants such as my self.

    Thank you.

    Reply
    • June 21, 2019

      Michigan is a state that has substantially implemented SORNA. It would have an impact on PRE-2006 persons in Michigan.

      Reply
  • June 20, 2019

    SORNA = Blackmail to the States

    Does anyone know how much money each state received from the blackmail money each year, over the years?

    see if the state is losing or making $$$ from SORNA
    see if (and how much) the inflated numbers Florida uses actually net Florida more money than other states that can compare to Florida’s non-inflated numbers

    Reply
    • June 21, 2019

      You can do a FOIA request.
      Steven Yoder wrote an article in The Appeal about this.

      Reply
  • June 20, 2019

    Right. It was more about the non delegation doctrine. Gundy was the vessel to the issue.

    This stood out in Gorsuch’s dissent:

    “It would be easy enough to let this case go. After all, sex offenders are one of the most disfavored groups in our society. But the rule that prevents Congress from giving the executive carte blanche to write laws for sex offenders is the same rule that protects everyone else.”

    It is as simple as that. They basically handed over a combined Article 1 and 2 legislative and executive power to a single individual.

    Reply
    • June 21, 2019

      VERY good point to bring out, Debbie. Thanks for that.

      Reply
      • June 21, 2019

        You’re welcome FAC

        Reply
  • June 20, 2019

    Thank you all for all you do!

    Reply
    • June 22, 2019

      Totally agree, JJJJ! FAC gives hope and encouragement to us all!! Thank you, FAC!!

      Reply

Comment Policy

  • PLEASE READ: Comments not adhering to this policy will be removed.
  • Be patient. All comments are moderated before they are published. This takes time.
  • Stay on topic. Comments and links should be relevant to this post.
  • *NEW* CLICK HERE if you have an off-topic comment or link.
  • Be respectful. Do not attack, abuse, or threaten. This includes cussing/yelling (ALL CAPS).
  • Cite. If requested, cite any bold or novel claims of fact or statistics, or your comment may be moderated.
  • *NEW* Be brief. If you have a comment of over 2,000 characters, please e-mail it to us for consideration as a member submission.
  • Reminder: Opinions and statements in comments are neither endorsed nor verified by FAC.
  • Moderation does not equal censorship. See this post for more information

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *