Transcript of Oral Argument in Gundy
The transcript of oral arguments in Gundy v. United States, that was heard before the Supreme Court of the United States a few hours ago, is now available here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2018/17-6086_9ol1.pdf
We wanted to share the transcript as soon as we knew it became available. Commentary will likely follow.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
For the state of Florida there is a consideration clause that if you are pardoned in your state you could be taken off the repot system, however I think florida keeps you on their computer list forever. This is my interpretation of the law and considerations for removal without forgiveness
This has nothing to do with your issue.
I think it went well. The argument on behalf of the government was rather weak I believe. Petitioner’s attorney did well presenting and at the end for the rebuttal. In general, it’s making the attorney general sound like a monarch ruler or some emperor that can do what he wants when we wants with the lives of thousands of people. That’s just wrong.
Let me see if I got this right. Even if this passes and I am before 2004, the Federal Government will take me off “the list”, but ass-backwards Florida will still keep me on the list because it is “the State Law”?????
Correct – in essence.
So how does this actually help? Are we looking for precedence for a case for florida?
So pre SORNA would be removed from Federal Registry which is only a catch all for state registries.
I am gathering that being removed at the federal level would also mean no more Passport Stamping or encrypting, and no more IML notices. These are all federal.
Thoughts?
That is a fair assumption, though unclear at this point.
Some laws are not based on registration status but having ever been convicted.
I think it went quite well. I would like to find an audio version of this so I can hear it. At first reading it I thought it was going to be – ugh – although I think they press on both sides just to test the waters.
but then, after Gorsuch spoke and as expected of what he might say, it went pretty well. I think he knows this is all BS. lol. I think they all know this as well. We’ll see what happens.
There were a couple of good tidbits. Gorsuch was refreshing and Justice Kagan, said, “Do you think that if there were a new attorney general who came in and said, you know, I think that this registration stuff has just gone overboard, and I’m going to start making some exceptions with respect to pre-Act offenders, because I think
that’s just unfair to penalize them for the rest of their lives, could the attorney general do that?”
Just the fact that she suggested (in a different context) that it’s overboard and unfair shows what’s in the back of their minds.
Yes, I loved that part, and I think that government attorney responded with, yea I don’t think the attorney general would that I believe. lol or something in that context. ( I would of loved to have seen the facial reactions of the justices, especially Gorsuch. Some things were quite amusing in a subtle sarcastic way, because this whole thing is just ridiculous and they pointed that out in their own way or words. I agree, it was very refreshing.
yea after that Kagan part about the overboard and unfair, the attorney said he doesn’t think the attorney general ” could ” do that, but it is more like ” would ” do that, If you know what I mean and certainly not the current attorney general who is hell bent in toughening crimes.
Loved everything Gorsuch had to say. It is scary to think that the attorney general can wake up one morning and decide to implement a rule that would affect thousands of people without those people even knowing it. But that is exactly what has been happening. Thousands of new people can be caught in it from one day to another without a warning and then there is the penalties of failure to registering it. The lady attorney for Gundy did very well. That SG attorney not so good. I got a good vibe about this.
@Bobby, et al,
You will be able to hear a recording of these arguments Friday afternoon/evening after the Friday conference. It will be posted at the SCOTUS website: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio/2018
@TS
Awesome ! Thank you.
@Bobby, et al
Gundy oral arguments is now posted for listening to and downloading at the link above.
@Bobby, et al,
I’ve been informed by another interested party of this case that Oyez has audio now, too, of the Gundy oral arguments hearing. You can read the text as it scrolls along with the audio. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-6086
Not an attorney but from a layman point of view I hope our side getting the last say was a good thing. I am curious to hear how the attorneys think our side arguing that the “Attorney General believed that his discretion was to essentially undertake the fundamental policy determination as to whether the costs outweigh the benefits” plays out. Do the Justices before making their decision now research this, which to me would be in our favor. If they do and see the recent evidence that costs are high (excess punitive laws) and the benefits overstated (safety) since the problem of safety was overstated (frightening and high recidivism), would that lead in our favor? Would it also be an opportunity to rectify SCOTUS’s reliance on the “frightening and high” myth? Or is the issue they will address much narrower than that? And more troubling even if we win Gundy, can congress not just merely rewrite the law and make it retroactive and so we have won nothing?
Does the fact the Attorney General did not view this as an issue of feasibility or practicality help our cause, since it seemed to me it was part of the government’s points?
Hope these are not off the mark questions as this is some heady complicated legal reading and I may be way off focus. So looking forward to hearing from the way more knowledgeable minds.
Recidivism rates have nothing to do with what is at issue in this case. The non-delegation doctrine has nothing to do with costs vs. benefits or the “frightening and high” mistake.
Thanks for clarifying! I asked whether it is a factor only because it is mentioned in the argument and thought it may be a considered vis-a-vis the Attorney General using such as justification to retroactively apply (which I gather are the delegation powers in question).
Fingers crossed that we win!!!
So, FAC, IF this passes and the people who were just added on—- Pre 2004
Is this what the Ex Post Facto suit is going to go after? Removal of Fla. Registrants pre 2004?
Should I start saving my money for an attorney for removal of my name from the registry
(TRUST ME—Clear My Case will never see a dime from me–LOL)
Even if Gundy prevails, what is to prevent congress from going back to the drawing board and specifically passing new legislation saying their intent is an all-inclusive, nationwide, retroactively imposed SORNA system on anyone convicted of a sex offense regardless of the date of offense?
The questions posed by the Justices seemed to favor Gundy in my humble opinion. Just not sure a ruling in our favor will translate into much changing for Pre-SORNA registrants. I’m a 1991 offense date. So if Gundy prevails, am I and others whose crimes pre-date SORNA free to move to any state we choose and not register as the government’s argument seemed to suggest? And dear me, what about those “Tribal” folks just chomping at the bit to get off SORNA and re-offend?
No, but Congress is forced by this ruling to rewrite the law to cover those who have not offended in over 12 years, there will be an opportunity to revisit those “frightening and high” recidivism rates.
“if” Congress is forced