Sex offender registration rules
Gundy v. United States
In brief
The Second Circuit’s ruling stands: four justices concluded the attorney general’s rule-setting power for people convicted before SORNA took effect did not violate the Constitution; Justice Alito supported the result for different reasons.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 5-3 · June 20, 2019 · Opinion by Justice Kagan
- What it’s about
- Herman Gundy argued that Congress unlawfully gave the attorney general authority to set SORNA registration rules for people convicted before the law took effect.
- Who it affects
- For Gundy, the Second Circuit’s ruling remains in place; four justices concluded the attorney general could set SORNA rules for people convicted before the law took effect without violating the Constitution.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court left the lower court’s ruling in place: four justices concluded the delegation was constitutional, and Justice Alito agreed with the result under existing precedent for different reasons.
SORNA is a federal law requiring people convicted of certain sex offenses to register; this dispute focused on rules for people convicted before the law took effect.
Question presented
1. Whether convicted sex offenders are "required to register” under the federal Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act ("SORNA”) 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 violates 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a), which requires interstate travel, where his only movement between states occurs while he is in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and serving a prison sentence? 4. Whether SORNA's delegation of authority to the Attorney General to issue regulations under 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d) violates the nondelegation doctrine?
What the Court decided
Holding
The judgment is affirmed. 695 Fed. Appx. 639, affirmed. JUSTICE KAGAN, joined by JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE BREYER, and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, concluded that §20913(d) does not violate the nondelegation doctrine.
- Result
- Affirmed
The Court's reasoning
Justice Kagan and three other justices concluded that giving the attorney general this rule-setting power did not violate the Constitution. Justice Alito said the Court’s long-standing approach had accepted broad rulemaking powers and that he could not say this law lacked enough guidance.
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
- Concurring · 1agreed with the result, wrote separately
- Alitowrote separately
From the opinions
“The Constitution promises that only the people’s elected representatives may adopt new federal laws restricting liberty.”
What's next
The Supreme Court has finished its review, and the Second Circuit’s ruling remains in place.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 3 moreShow fewer
Opinion added: Gundy
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What did Justice Gorsuch object to?
- He argued that only elected representatives should make laws restricting liberty, not executive officials.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.