In 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court gave federal bureaucrats the flexibility to interpret the law when the language was unclear. “That decision said “judges should defer to federal agencies in interpreting the law when the language of a statute was ambiguous, thereby giving regulatory flexibility to bureaucrats.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned this 40-year-old precedent. Chief Justice John Robers wrote in the majority opinion, “Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.” Many people felt that Gundy v. United States gave too much power to agency bureaucrats to interpret the law.
Chief Justice John Roberts said “that the ruling does not cast into doubt prior cases that relied on the precedent, but going forward lower courts ‘may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.’”
Some people said that too much power was given to agencies to interpret the law, one such example being the power given to the Department of Justice in interpreting and implementing SORNA (Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act). At issue: Did Congress violate the non-delegation doctrine when it passed the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, giving the attorney general authority to issue regulations?
It would appear that much of this registry is law enforcement putting others in jeopardy if one understands much of these trappings correctly. We can all talk about. This interpretation of language of law and the motive behind much of this registry sounds like someone is putting another in jeopardy. So why stand in jeopardy? Would any law enforcement agent worth their salt take advantage of another? That is not justice
Oh yes they hold the sword and are established to do justice. Are plea deals or bargains a type of extortion? Facts and proof differ in many situations. Many people are coerced into plea deals which differ from plea bargains. In many of these sex registry ruses. Cohesion with wrong motivation on the part law enforcement is a downfall for true justice, or what is good and what is evil?
I’ll volunteer to be named in a suit against the USA and/or Florida. My defense lawyer argued at sentencing in 2010 that its improper for a federal judge to order anyone to register in any state since these are different jurisdictions; I was NOT convicted of any state crime, only 1 count of CP in a federal court. We lost that argument in 2010, but it seems applicable now in 2024 due to 1) the argument being preserved on the record, and 2) this recent SCOTUS decision. FAC has my email address if we can move forward. Thanks.
“1 count of CP ”
And let me tell you a thing or two about that bud, with that charge they are gonna ride that never-ending wave past the shore, milk that cow dry and get a lot of mileage off that one charge. They will gaslight you, use fear, shame and guilt to control you and make you out to be on the same level as someone that took the photos.
I have the same charge (1 CP poss FED). To this day, I still get side-eyed from “neighbors” and shunned when applying for jobs.
So I am not sure if it is possible, but maybe Gundy can request a rehearing with the full court now in action. This could lead to a victory for him. Which I believe could open the door for challenges. The hurdle though is and will forever be the SCOTUS rulling in 2023 in the Alaska case. That is what they, Justices and Judges, run back too. However now with Chervron being dismantled possible an argument can made via a compare / contrast to 1st generation SO laws and the mess we have now. If one can show that difference a Judge could refer back to the first generation laws and now he or she is not bound by the chevron Doctrine. Just my thoughts.
Does this affect our South Florida Ex Post Facto case?
Congress clearly violated the ‘Separation of Powers’ when it enabled the AG to make and prosecute laws in SORNA.
In A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), the Supreme Court held that “Congress is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested.” so yes, they clearly violated the non-delegation doctrine-They urinated on the Constitution and on one of the fundamental principles laid down by the forefathers of this nation to prevent government overreach. The forefathers of this nation weren’t stupid. They carefully thought all this out so that we could live relatively free lives from government overreach and to keep Congress from migrating powers from one branch of government to another. There are those out there who absurdly and stupidly want to get rid of the Constitution. What do they want instead? A dictatorship? Communism? Socialism? Their own self-made constitution? Being a true American means you believe in what this nation was founded upon which was God-given freedom spelled out in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the Emancipation Proclamation. If you want to do away with that you
DON’T belong in America because you don’t espouse the fundamental principles this nation called ‘America’ was founded upon. Stop trying to make ‘America’ UN-American.
This strikes me as good, even if the registrant community doesn’t see it right away.
Of course, the majority of judges at all levels will still view the registry as perfectly hunky-dory. If anything, they’ll just find another way to wordsmith it. On the other hand, there is a growing number of judges who call the registry what it is who are now not bound to rule with the status quo because of the Chevron precedent essentially giving the authority of agencies to rewrite the law as they see fit.
Hmm. Judges interpreting law. What a novel concept. Makes me wonder why no one ever thought of that before. [/sarc]
This will stir up a lot of bee’s nests. It could go either way, but we seem to always be the last group the courts want to deal with. We generally get the can kicked down the road for another judge to take on the burden of dealing with sex offender issues.
An example is the slow movement on the Ex post facto decisions. Seems to be a sleeper subject.