Gundy v. United States

Gundy v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 2, 2018 Decided June 20, 2019
Full case name	Herman Avery Gundy, Petitioner v. United States
Docket no.	17-6086
Citations	588 U.S. 128 (more) 139 S. Ct. 2116; 204 L. Ed. 2d 522
Argument	Oral 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, No. 16-1829 (2d Cir. June 22, 2017) Cert. granted (limited to question 4), 695 U.S 639 (2018)
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
Plurality	Kagan, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
Concurrence	Alito (in judgment)
Dissent	Gorsuch, joined by Roberts, Thomas
Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Art. I

Gundy v. United States, No. 17-6086, 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]