SCOTUS to hear Sex Offender Case
The Supreme Court of the US has agreed to hear a sex offender case., Gundy v. United States.
The issues in the case are:
(1) Whether convicted sex offenders are “required to register” under the federal Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act while in custody, regardless of how long they have until release; (2) whether all offenders convicted of a qualifying sex offense prior to SORNA’s enactment are “required to register” under SORNA no later than August 1, 2008; (3) whether a defendant travels in interstate commerce for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) when his only movement between states occurs while he is in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and serving a prison sentence; and (4) whether SORNA’s delegation of authority to the attorney general to issue regulations under 42 U.S.C. § 16913 violates the nondelegation doctrine.
NOTE: only (4) is being taken up by the SCOTUS
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You know this brings up another issue -Florida applies all their new RSO laws to everyone – across the board. When a state law is made about something I would think that qualifies it as punishment. Things like the identifier law. Applied across the board – does not depend on when you were charged at all.
It is legal as it is regulatory and not punishment
Call it what you want, the effect is the same.
Yes sir. I wonder how these “regulatory” opinions would change if such reporting were applied to all owners of firearms convicted of a misdemeanor crime, ever treated for depression, anxiety, PTSD, etc. etc.? We are so far removed from the constitution nothing would surprise me in the name of “safety” from our fear-mongering political hacks, nor from the public who sheepishly watch their rights disappear.
I hear what you are saying John but….the civil county by county laws are civil and regulatory – but the state laws I believe automatically are not considered regulatory because they only focus on a certain group of people. Making a law that focuses on only a certain group of people has got to be unconstitutional – and anything that carries a jail punishment is just that – a punishment
MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL:
This argument does not demonstrate the conclusion it purports to justify. Let us apply the majority’s reasoning to a similar, hypothetical case. After investigation, Congress determines (not unrealistically) that a large proportion of violent crime is perpetrated by persons who are unemployed. It also determines, equally reasonably, that much violent crime is committed at night. From amongst the panoply of “potential solutions,” Congress chooses a statute which permits, without judicial review, the imposition of a dusk-to-dawn curfew on anyone who is unemployed. Since this is not a measure enacted for the purpose of punishing the unemployed, and since the majority finds that preventing danger to the community is a legitimate regulatory goal, the curfew statute would, according to the majority’s analysis, be a mere “regulatory” detention statute, entirely compatible with the substantive components of the Due Process Clause.
The absurdity of this conclusion arises, of course, from the majority’s cramped concept of substantive due process. The majority proceeds as though the only substantive right protected by the Due Process Clause is a right to be free from punishment before conviction. The majority’s technique for infringing this right is simple: merely redefine any measure which is claimed to be punishment as “regulation,” and, magically, the Constitution no longer prohibits its imposition.
Because, as I discuss in Part III, infra, the Due Process Clause protects other substantive rights which are infringed by this legislation, the majority’s argument is merely an exercise in obfuscation.
Hope this clarifies the confusion
Unless I read that incorrectly Justice Marshall was calling BS on the “regulatory” crap.
Shout to CMC! That was a great analogy and I commend you for it. Me, I interpret what you’re saying to mean that if those clowns in DC had a mind to they can pass legislation to justify the re-imprisonment but instead of regular prisons but Nazi style concentration camps.
They already have. It’s called civil commitment
I believe that was exactly what the Nazis told the Jews when requiring them to be place on a registry.
Seems it was punishment in the end.
John Doe – when something carries the threat of jail it stops being regulatory and becomes punishment
No, the State of Florida did not apply the 1000 foot rule to persons convicted prior to 2004 once they finished sanctions, BUT they did a run around and permitted cities and counties to invoke the 2500 foot rule. Only lack of funding has prevented that from being challenged until recently, I’m sure.
The State of Florida never intended is residency restriction to be regulatory. It’s intent and purpose was to punish. The problem is that the Excile case was presented as preemption challenge.
State constitutional law prohibits home rule Counties from imposing Punishment.
On its face the State statue is punishment barring counties from increaseing the punishment imposed.
Example Dade County can not impose a life sentence man slaughter if the State punishment is say 20 years.
I guess something that always confuses me also is that technically the registry is not part of a persons sentence – if it were then it would be considered punishment. It makes no sense.
Many of the restrictions placed on sex offenders from say 1997 until 2004 were statutorily mandated special conditions of probation aka PUNISHMENT. THAT is the main problem with the subsequent county and city imposed residency restrictions, at least as they apply to folks convicted before 2004. Of course, that SHOULD be persons whose OFFENSE was before 2004.
I pray to god whomever is fighting for our side is at the top of their game and has their ducks in a row.
If we are successful here other RSO nonsense can be appealed to SCOTUS
I’m having trouble finding details on this case, but was Gundy charged with failure to register while he was in custody?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/34is8oq2xmowoyt/17-6086-petition%20%281%29.pdf?dl=0
My son was 2010 so this of course does not affect him – however, in my opinion ever time an ex post facto case is decided in our favor it is a chink in the wall of the registry. Think about this ex post facto is based on the big P word – punishment. By acknowledging ex post facto they are also acknowledging punishment!
I am from Michigan, and even though we won, Does v Snyder and The Michigan Legislature still has not gotten of their butt’s to revise our registry, because when they do I will be removed from the registry since my conviction was on 6-19- 1992 before Michigan even had a registry.
How would this effect me, or would it even effect me at all just curious about this and how or if it would effect Michigan at all, thank you.
If the law was declared unconstitutional and there is not replacement law, then why are you still registered?