Gundy v. United States

Gundy v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 2, 2018
Decided June 20, 2019
Full case nameHerman Avery Gundy, Petitioner v. United States
Docket no.17-6086
Citations588 U.S. 128 (more)
139 S. Ct. 2116; 204 L. Ed. 2d 522
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
Prior
  • Charge dismissed, United States v. Gundy, 13 Crim. 8 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. May. 22, 2013)
  • Motion to reconsider denied, United States v. Gundy, 13 Crim. 8 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. September 11, 2013)
  • Judgement reversed and remanded, United States v. Gundy, 804 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2015)
  • Defendant convicted by bench trial, United States v. Gundy, 13 Crim. 8 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2016)
  • Judgement affirmed, United States v. Gundy, 695 Fed.Appx. 639 (2d Cir. June 22, 2017)
  • Cert. granted (limited to question 4), 583 U.S 1166 (2018)
Subsequent
  • Rehearing denied.
Questions presented
Whether SORNA's delegation of authority to the Attorney General to issue regulations under 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d) violates the nondelegation doctrine.
Holding
SORNA's delegation of authority to the Attorney General does not violate the nondelegation doctrine. Judgement of the Second Circuit affirmed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
PluralityKagan, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
ConcurrenceAlito (in judgment)
DissentGorsuch, joined by Roberts, Thomas
Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Art. I, § 1

Gundy v. United States, 588 U.S. 128 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d), part of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act ("SORNA"), does not violate the nondelegation doctrine.[1][2] The section of the SORNA allows the Attorney General to "specify the applicability" of the mandatory registration requirements of "sex offenders convicted before the enactment of [SORNA]".[3] Precedent is that it is only constitutional for Congress to delegate legislative power to the executive branch if it provides an "intelligible principle" as guidance.[4] The outcome of the case could have greatly influenced the broad delegations of power Congress has made to the federal executive branch,[5] but it did not.[6]

  1. ^ Gundy v. United States, No. 17-6086, 588 U.S. ___ (2019).
  2. ^ "Gundy v. United States | Oyez". Oyez. Retrieved May 3, 2019.
  3. ^ 42 U.S.C. § 16913
  4. ^ J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928)
  5. ^ Heinzerling, Lisa (August 29, 2018). "How the Supreme Court Created a Constitutional Case Against the Administrative State". Expert Forum. American Constitution Society. Retrieved May 6, 2019.
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference CNN was invoked but never defined (see the help page).