Non-delegation Doctrine in Sex Offender Cases Relisted
The Supreme Court of the United States have scheduled the following three cases for “relisting”
Gundy v. United States, 17-6086
Paul v. United States, 17-8830
Caldwell v. United States, 18-6852
All cases have the same issue, “Whether the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act’s delegation to the Attorney General in 34 U.S.C. § 20913(d) (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d)) violates the constitutional nondelegation doctrine.”
According to SCOTUSBlog, “When a case is “relisted,” that means that it is set for reconsideration at the Justices’ next Conference. Unlike a hold, this will show up on the case’s electronic docket. A relist can mean several things, including the fairly straightforward prospect that one or more Justices wants to take a closer look at the case; that one or more Justices is trying to pick up enough votes to grant review (four are needed); that the Justices are writing a summary reversal (that is, a decision that the lower court opinion was so wrong that the Court can decide the case on the merits without briefing or oral argument); or that one or more Justices are writing a dissent from the decision to deny review.”
In July, Gundy requested a rehearing. The other two cases are from the 6th circuit and were requesting review by the SCOTUS.
While rehearings are rarely granted, and the consensus among legal scholars is to not get hopes up, so we’re just sharing the info.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s my basic understanding that the scotus should only be deciding these cases based upon evidence, and legality. So if the evidence says one thing, why are they following the “feelings based” way of things. Society feels a group is bad, so they just must be. It’s so frustrating to have to live this life.
The issue needs to be properly argued before SCOTUS. That hasn’t happened yet.