Gundy v. United States is not listed in most media accounts of important matters now before the Supreme Court, yet this case could profoundly change how courts intervene to preserve the constitutional separation of powers in the future. Full Commentary
For The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro reports that “[t]he long delay in the court’s decision-making” in Gundy v. United States, which asks whether a provision of the federal sex-offender act violates the nondelegation doctrine, “has been a mystery and a cause for consternation among court-watchers who view the case as a crucial milestone in the effort to shrink the power of federal regulators and bureaucrats.”
Does anyone have a subscription?
Steveo
Guest
June 10, 2019 6:38 pm
Ok, so it sounds like we will probably either hear something on the 17th or by the 24th. Of all the theories that are out there about Gundy, the two that I think are most plausible are that it’s a 4/4 split, and they’re all talking to try and split somebody into the other camp, or it’s just such an important case in regards to limiting executive power that they want to make both sides (the majority and dissenting opinions) different drafts into well presented final statements.
Any thoughts on what happens if Gundy wins? Does it put the writing on the wall for states who’ve also used sketchy maneuvers to apply registration laws retroactively? Does it put State laws at odds with Federal laws? What does it do to the International Megan’s Law that was created so late in the game?
Seveo
Guest
June 11, 2019 3:04 pm
@AJ, ok lets roll with that idea that congress has to actually define the extent to which the registration scheme should apply to grandfather in those who’s day in court has already come and gone. They will have to put down in the law, clear language that is very problematic for them. They will have to say something to the effect that “this new law also applies to people who’s day in court was any time before this new law”. I mean we all know why they didn’t’ originally define it and left it to the AG to simply regulate into law is because the mere defining of it makes it more vulnerable. That has to be what the legal teams assigned to help write the law in the first place must have been thinking, right? I think it’s got to be at least some sort of a win for the side of all of us who’ve continually had the deal changed on us to be more and more punitive, more and more invasive, more and more limiting of our liberty. I know I would NEVER have taken the deal offered to me if I had known that they were going to change it to a lifetime as a second class citizen that can never get rid of this scarlet letter, or even move away to escape their perpetual torment of me and my family.
Steveo
Guest
June 11, 2019 6:51 pm
@CR – I’m not super in touch with all of this, so I could be wrong, but I think I recall the way my state did it is that they did a process maneuver where they have a never ending statue of of limitations tied to the crime itself, so they can say that people who commit that crime must register because of that, not that they actually claim it must be applied retroactively. That would be a violation of ex-post-facto laws. Basically they have to find slimy and dishonest ways to get their agenda done. Most of us who have to register were never charged federally, so it seems like they would have to do something different.
I sort of wish that someone smarter than me about all of this would say more, but perhaps I just don’t know what I’m talking about and the naysayers are all right that it’s all useless and nothing good will come of it.
Steveo
Guest
June 13, 2019 5:33 pm
Thanks CR and AJ… CR, I think that case you are talking about is scheduled for October. My trial was in January of 1994, so I’m thinking I will qualify to be removed if they win, or I was thinking if they win that I will be able to go to court and have a lawyer cite their case I guess.
Bobby
Guest
June 13, 2019 8:51 pm
So everyone, just curious on what people think. Do you think we will finally get a decision I. Gundy come Monday the 17th, or do you think SCOTUS will make us wait until the 24th?. Again just curious on what people think about it.
TS
Guest
June 14, 2019 7:19 am
Patience everyone…We’re all frustrated with this pace but IIRC, it was discussed here this could be one case that goes to the term’s end before publishing.
Bobby
Guest
June 17, 2019 11:15 am
Hello,
So I was looking all over scotus website and scotusblog, and didn’t find anything on Gundy, so I’m guessing we will now have to wait until next Monday to hear scotus’s out com concerning Gundy?
I know a lot of you out there know way more then I do about this stuff and how it works. that’s why I am asking any new or current news or updates on Gundy. When it comes to this stuff i’m as dumb as a box of rocks. LOL Thanks in advance.
CR
Guest
June 20, 2019 7:26 am
The decision on Gundy was released today, with Kagan writing for a plurality of the eight-member court. The second circuit’s decision was affirmed. Congress did not violate the non-delegation doctrine by telling the attorney general to decide whether and how to apply SORNA to people who committed an offense before the effective date of the act.
We are indeed second class citizens, no matter the protestations to the contrary uttered by judges and legislators who insist on viewing registration laws as merely regulatory.
It is confirmed that we can never be free again, never fully rejoin society again, after committing a sexual offense. Any relief we manage to obtain during our lives can, at any future time, be wiped out by some new act of the congress applied retroactively, or worse yet, by the attorney general making up laws as he/she sees fit, based upon the most general and non-specific delegation by congress.
CR
Guest
June 20, 2019 7:44 am
Gorsuch, in the opening paragraph of his dissent, points out the problem for the rest of America, that is, for all other people residing in this country:
“The Constitution promises that only the people’s elected representatives may adopt new federal laws restricting liberty. Yet the statute before us scrambles that design. It purports to endow the nation’s chief
prosecutor with the power to write his own criminal code governing the lives of a half-million citizens. Yes, those affected are some of the least popular among us. But if a single executive branch official can write laws restricting the liberty of this group of persons, what does that mean for the next?”
If everyone understood that, perhaps a new tea party would ensue.
CR
Guest
June 20, 2019 8:11 am
Even if SCOTUS had decided that Congress overstepped its authority through its delegation to the AG in this particular case, that would not have brought us relief because it doesn’t address the real issue, the error of SCOTUS in 1798 in Calder v Bull.
Well, I’ve always been cynical about this particular case, and I have to say I’m not particularly surprised by the decision. Nor am I surprised that Alito, even though he indicated he would be willing to reconsider the approach of the past 84 years with respect to non-delegation had there been majority consensus, nevertheless voted to affirm, concurring in the judgement. He could have withheld that, but it would be out of character for Alito to go against the desires of the other branches of government when it comes to sticking it to “criminals” in general, and “sex offenders” in particular, a class he appears to hold in great disdain. (Not that he differs in that regard from most people.)
Awesome breakdown of the Gundy’s analysis. https://thinkprogress.org/the-two-most-important-supreme-court-cases-youve-never-heard-of-5a86a9dbf201/
For The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro reports that “[t]he long delay in the court’s decision-making” in Gundy v. United States, which asks whether a provision of the federal sex-offender act violates the nondelegation doctrine, “has been a mystery and a cause for consternation among court-watchers who view the case as a crucial milestone in the effort to shrink the power of federal regulators and bureaucrats.”
Does anyone have a subscription?
Ok, so it sounds like we will probably either hear something on the 17th or by the 24th. Of all the theories that are out there about Gundy, the two that I think are most plausible are that it’s a 4/4 split, and they’re all talking to try and split somebody into the other camp, or it’s just such an important case in regards to limiting executive power that they want to make both sides (the majority and dissenting opinions) different drafts into well presented final statements.
Any thoughts on what happens if Gundy wins? Does it put the writing on the wall for states who’ve also used sketchy maneuvers to apply registration laws retroactively? Does it put State laws at odds with Federal laws? What does it do to the International Megan’s Law that was created so late in the game?
@AJ, ok lets roll with that idea that congress has to actually define the extent to which the registration scheme should apply to grandfather in those who’s day in court has already come and gone. They will have to put down in the law, clear language that is very problematic for them. They will have to say something to the effect that “this new law also applies to people who’s day in court was any time before this new law”. I mean we all know why they didn’t’ originally define it and left it to the AG to simply regulate into law is because the mere defining of it makes it more vulnerable. That has to be what the legal teams assigned to help write the law in the first place must have been thinking, right? I think it’s got to be at least some sort of a win for the side of all of us who’ve continually had the deal changed on us to be more and more punitive, more and more invasive, more and more limiting of our liberty. I know I would NEVER have taken the deal offered to me if I had known that they were going to change it to a lifetime as a second class citizen that can never get rid of this scarlet letter, or even move away to escape their perpetual torment of me and my family.
@CR – I’m not super in touch with all of this, so I could be wrong, but I think I recall the way my state did it is that they did a process maneuver where they have a never ending statue of of limitations tied to the crime itself, so they can say that people who commit that crime must register because of that, not that they actually claim it must be applied retroactively. That would be a violation of ex-post-facto laws. Basically they have to find slimy and dishonest ways to get their agenda done. Most of us who have to register were never charged federally, so it seems like they would have to do something different.
I sort of wish that someone smarter than me about all of this would say more, but perhaps I just don’t know what I’m talking about and the naysayers are all right that it’s all useless and nothing good will come of it.
Thanks CR and AJ… CR, I think that case you are talking about is scheduled for October. My trial was in January of 1994, so I’m thinking I will qualify to be removed if they win, or I was thinking if they win that I will be able to go to court and have a lawyer cite their case I guess.
So everyone, just curious on what people think. Do you think we will finally get a decision I. Gundy come Monday the 17th, or do you think SCOTUS will make us wait until the 24th?. Again just curious on what people think about it.
Patience everyone…We’re all frustrated with this pace but IIRC, it was discussed here this could be one case that goes to the term’s end before publishing.
Hello,
So I was looking all over scotus website and scotusblog, and didn’t find anything on Gundy, so I’m guessing we will now have to wait until next Monday to hear scotus’s out com concerning Gundy?
I know a lot of you out there know way more then I do about this stuff and how it works. that’s why I am asking any new or current news or updates on Gundy. When it comes to this stuff i’m as dumb as a box of rocks. LOL Thanks in advance.
The decision on Gundy was released today, with Kagan writing for a plurality of the eight-member court. The second circuit’s decision was affirmed. Congress did not violate the non-delegation doctrine by telling the attorney general to decide whether and how to apply SORNA to people who committed an offense before the effective date of the act.
We are indeed second class citizens, no matter the protestations to the contrary uttered by judges and legislators who insist on viewing registration laws as merely regulatory.
It is confirmed that we can never be free again, never fully rejoin society again, after committing a sexual offense. Any relief we manage to obtain during our lives can, at any future time, be wiped out by some new act of the congress applied retroactively, or worse yet, by the attorney general making up laws as he/she sees fit, based upon the most general and non-specific delegation by congress.
Gorsuch, in the opening paragraph of his dissent, points out the problem for the rest of America, that is, for all other people residing in this country:
“The Constitution promises that only the people’s elected representatives may adopt new federal laws restricting liberty. Yet the statute before us scrambles that design. It purports to endow the nation’s chief
prosecutor with the power to write his own criminal code governing the lives of a half-million citizens. Yes, those affected are some of the least popular among us. But if a single executive branch official can write laws restricting the liberty of this group of persons, what does that mean for the next?”
If everyone understood that, perhaps a new tea party would ensue.
Even if SCOTUS had decided that Congress overstepped its authority through its delegation to the AG in this particular case, that would not have brought us relief because it doesn’t address the real issue, the error of SCOTUS in 1798 in Calder v Bull.
Well, I’ve always been cynical about this particular case, and I have to say I’m not particularly surprised by the decision. Nor am I surprised that Alito, even though he indicated he would be willing to reconsider the approach of the past 84 years with respect to non-delegation had there been majority consensus, nevertheless voted to affirm, concurring in the judgement. He could have withheld that, but it would be out of character for Alito to go against the desires of the other branches of government when it comes to sticking it to “criminals” in general, and “sex offenders” in particular, a class he appears to hold in great disdain. (Not that he differs in that regard from most people.)