Supreme Court justices on Tuesday grappled with how much power Congress can pass on to federal agencies in a case that could change the way Capitol Hill legislates. Full Article
CA: Government Files Motion to Dismiss SORNA ComplaintSource: ACSOL The federal government filed on February 13, 2023, a motion to dismiss the pending...
IL: Illinois gets penalized yearly for not meeting federal Sex Offender Registry standards, but keeps getting money backSource: cbsnews.com 2/7/23 CHICAGO (CBS) — Illinois loses grant money every year as a penalty for...
CA: A Federal Judge Says the DOJ’s Sex Offender SORNA Registration Rules Violate Due Process by Requiring the ImpossibleSource: reason.com 1/19/23 Justice Department regulations threaten people with prosecution for failing to register even when...
Now this is encouraging….
I could hear the government argue:
“We can’t just let 100,000 Sex Offenders loose on the streets”.
“Because we need to “”control”” them”.
@ioshiames, yes, there is commentary and discussion of the oral arguments in another current thread about this case here:
My opinion is that if SORNA is struck down in full or in part due because of the delegation issue, Congress can and probably will simply reenact it without delegating authority to the AG to write the laws. They can simply incorporate the regulations as implemented by the AG. That will serve to make it presumptively constitutional again.
Depending on how the question is resolved, Congress could also reenact SORNA with additional guidance to the AG, providing the “intelligible principle” needed to satisfy the courts.
Either way, SORNA can be reenacted rather quickly if Congress desires. So I don’t think there will be any lasting positive impact for registered citizens, since SORNA, if killed, is not likely to stay dead.
Where this could be big is in effect on countless other laws that were created by Congressional delegation.
I really want to be optimistic about this, and I sort of am, but isn’t there a chance that Congress would simply rewrite a new version of SORNA which does not violate nondelegation?
NO! We cannot have that!! What would this country come to?!
Heck, the USG gave 4,000 (I think w/o referring to the transcript again to confirm) as their scary number. It sounds like MO in their smaller number yet of those who are unaccounted for and the immediate need to find them for the fear of them being free without LE knowing their whereabouts.
On the other hand, the 200K-300K number (# of regulations) given out by Justice Breyer in a scare tactic of his own, when noting a brief, that may need to be addressed if Gundy’s case overturns the appellate case ruling. OMG! The work load that may come into SCOTUS’ inbox with petitions to consider on this very topic (lest be heard) OR even worse yet, the work Congress would need to do to address this very topic when there are more important things to consider daily such as National Taco Day proclamations!
You all will find this of interest and think ACSOL could make this article a post of its own:
How Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Neil Gorsuch are on the same side of a key SCOTUS case
Added Justice Ginsburg: “There’s no notice to these people.”
Madam Justice, that has been a problem for years for the citizenry of this country regardless of what law is passed. I will not even give the Fed Register the credit some folks would like to in how it “notifies” the public of new Fed Law. Posting, hope it is read and shared is not notification (neither is the fine print in the back of the newspaper with legal postings IMO). I have never heard of a State Register that posts new laws in the same fashion as the Fed Register.
The public never knows what they can and cannot do on a given day WRT the law because of the lack of notification to them unless it has the legislative stamp of “I need votes and this is what I did for you, my constituents!” or maybe media attention. Combine that with LE who does not have to enforce the law correctly, as given permission by SCOTUS previously, or even tell them of the new law (except with the occasional grace period before full implementation), the citizenry should be very afraid to leave their domicile for the fear of breaking some law they were unaware of in the first place.
While the registrant is told continually to be aware of travel laws, e.g. of other places and passports, and do their respective research before departing, even the USG cannot get it correct when it comes to ensuring the registrant who does do their research and tries to be in full compliance can be in full compliance. This, Madam Justice, is the flooding of the country of laws (200K-300K perhaps?) that are not fully researched, vetted, understood, written, or passed for proper implementation. Leaving it for one Congressionally confirmed and authorized person to decide what legally can happen and to who is no better than King George doing the same before this country decided it had had enough and showed its collective middle finger in return.
One of the flaws in your statement is that there have been hundreds of thousands of us who were convicted after the act passed.
Wouldn’t this potentially have an impact on IML too, both deferring reporting requirements to AG and retroactive impact of those convicted prior to legislation passing?
Interesting article in Slate about this topic – seems promising. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/neil-gorsuch-sex-offender-registry-supreme-court.html
If they ruled in Gundy’s favor and said it is Ex Post Facto and thus illegal, would that also mean it would make the passport issue illegal since its a law amended to SORNA and the fact its a new law they are forcing people convicted decades ago to follow? I’d think if they thought SORNA was Ex post Facto and punishment, then everything that associated with it would be void as well. Its nice to see some Judges understand forcing people to register due to convictions years or decades before SORNA is nothing more than punishment and against the constitution. I hope they also really bring home the point the registry itself is punishment in that it does NOT allow one to go on with their life and that allowing SORNA to stand means accepting the government can make up ex post facto laws on a whim and make everyone follow them or be punished no matter how long ago the conviction was……….
First thought is about the “effective” date. Which applies, the original SORNA passage July 27, 2006, or the AG rule effective on February 28, 2007? If you were convicted in December, 2006, for example, is that “before?”
“The Attorney General published this Rule to specify that SORNA applies retroactively to all sex offenders, including sex offenders convicted of the offense for which registration is required before the enactment of SORNA.”
“Effective Date of Interim Rule: February 28, 2007 | Effective Date of Final Rule: January 28, 2011”
But, more importantly, it seems to me, is that I was convicted in Illinois under Illinois law, so what effect would striking down SORNA a Federal statute have on me (and most people who have state convictions)?
EXCEPT for the IML, which as I read it is “part” of SORNA. Would it go down if Gundy wins, so it could not be applied retroactively, which would affect almost everyone now on the registry?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-MsEGQqGbA. Admin, this is about the hearing on October 2nd with Gundy vs. United States. Around the 30 min mark, one of the justices asked about what happens if they are a great citizen after so many years. She made some great comments in our favor.
Interesting article here regarding this case I thought you all would like to read:
Gorsuch and Sotomayor Fault Congress for Giving ‘a Blank Check to the Attorney General’
“It remains to be seen whether or not a majority of the Supreme Court will see this case in the same light as Gorsuch and Sotomayor seem to see it. If the Court does, it will be a significant win both for criminal justice reformers and for critics of executive overreach.”
June 2019 expected decision from the article.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2014826518579943&id=233731560022790. Here is a article from Women against the Registry.
What’s all the confusion? It is involuntary servitude that can only be imposed by a court as punishment for crime. Read the 13th Amendment.
Rather than pay the cost of collecting personal data for publication on its shiny new website government chose to force the targeted group to supply the data for free. That’s human exploitation.