Scrambled SCOTUS Lineup in 'Gundy' Ruling Upholds Executive Power
"Indeed, if SORNA's delegation is unconstitutional, then most of government is unconstitutional," Justice Elena Kagan said in the plurality ruling. Justice Samuel Alito Jr., joining the court's liberal wing, concurred in the judgment but expressed his desire to take a second look in a future case.
June 20, 2019 at 11:01 AM
6 minute read
A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a federal law on sex offender registration, finding that Congress did not delegate too much power to the attorney general to establish the statute's regulations.
The long-awaited ruling in Gundy v. United States sidestepped a full examination of the nondelegation doctrine, which limits the ability of Congress to delegate its legislative powers to executive branch agencies.
The doctrine has been largely dormant for decades but drew attention as the Trump administration launched its effort to dismantle the administrative state. When Congress vaguely delegates its powers to executive agencies in legislation, the concern is that regulations affecting people and businesses can bloom without congressional enactment or approval.
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said that the delegation of regulations that are part of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) statute “falls well within permissible bounds.”
“Indeed, if SORNA's delegation is unconstitutional, then most of government is unconstitutional—dependent as Congress is on the need to give discretion to executive officials to implement its programs,” Kagan wrote.
Justice Samuel Alito Jr., concurring in the judgment, joined with the court's liberal wing as the fifth vote for Thursday's ruling. Alito did not join his liberal colleagues' constitutional or statutory analysis. He said he would be open, in a future case, to revisiting the court's long-taken approaches.
“If a majority of this court were willing to reconsider the approach we have taken for the past 84 years, I would support that effort. But because a majority is not willing to do that, it would be freakish to single out the provision at issue here for special treatment,” Alito wrote.
Alito voted to affirm the law “because I cannot say that the statute lacks a discernable standard that is adequate under the approach this court has taken for many years.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a dissent that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Clarence Thomas.
“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,” Gorsuch wrote. “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?”
Gorsuch said: “Nor would enforcing the Constitution's demands spell doom for what some call the 'administrative state.' The separation of powers does not prohibit any particular policy outcome, let alone dictate any conclusion about the proper size and scope of government.”
The Gundy case was argued last Oct. 2, before Justice Brett Kavanaugh had taken the bench. Kavanaugh did not participate in Thursday's ruling. New justices who join after a case has been argued traditionally do not vote on those disputes.
The high court has not used the nondelegation doctrine in more than 80 years to strike down a statute as unconstitutional. But it has become the focus of renewed attention as courts developed principles of deference to federal agencies that interpret their own rules or implement laws without clear guidance from Congress.
The doctrine stems from Article 1, Section 1, of the Constitution, which vests “all legislative powers” in Congress. As it has evolved, the test for determining nondelegation is whether Congress has provided an “intelligible principle” to guide agency rulemaking discretion.
The vehicle for reexamining the doctrine was an unusual one, involving a provision of SORNA that delegates to the attorney general the power to issue certain regulations under the law.
Plaintiff Herman Gundy ran afoul of the SORNA regs when, after serving his sentence for a sexual assault in Maryland, he received permission to travel unsupervised from Pennsylvania to a New York halfway house and failed to register as a sex offender in Maryland and New York.
His lawyer, New York federal defender Sarah Baumgartel, appealed, and the high court granted review on only one issue: whether SORNA unlawfully delegates authority to the U.S. attorney general to impose the law's registration requirements on offenders convicted before the law was enacted.
Conservative groups are not ordinarily keen on helping sex offenders, but they filed amicus briefs in favor of Gundy, as did liberals. Stanford Law School professors Jeffrey Fisher and Pamela Karlan are on Gundy's brief, though Baumgartel argued on his behalf. Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall argued that SORNA does not violate the nondelegation doctrine.
“Herman Gundy was punished for violating a law that no legislature enacted. He now stands convicted of a crime based on the attorney general's whim. Few insults to the principles of a free society could be greater,” Cato Institute's Ilya Shapiro wrote in an amicus brief.
Gorsuch said in his dissent: “It would be easy enough to let this case go. After all, sex offenders are one of the most disfavored groups in our society. But the rule that prevents Congress from giving the executive carte blanche to write laws for sex offenders is the same rule that protects everyone else.”
The court's ruling in Gundy v. United States is posted below:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllA Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
4 minute read'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 2Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 3'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 4Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
- 5As a New Year Dawns, the Value of Florida’s Revised Mediation Laws Comes Into Greater Focus
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250