Supreme Court of the United States · 2019 · Administrative Law
588 U.S. 128 (2019)
Updated
Administrative Lawnondelegation revivalnondelegationdelegation to Attorney Generaldiscernable standardSORNAsex offender registrationseparation of powers
Facts
The statute at issue authorized the Attorney General to specify the applicability of SORNA's registration requirements to sex offenders convicted before the Act's enactment and to prescribe rules for their registration. Herman Gundy had been convicted of a sexual offense in 2005, before SORNA was enacted. After his release from prison, he was arrested for failing to register under rules the Attorney General had prescribed for pre-Act offenders. He argued that the statute unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the Attorney General.
Issue
Whether the statutory provision authorizing the Attorney General to determine SORNA's applicability to pre-Act offenders lacks a sufficiently discernable standard under the Court's nondelegation precedents and therefore violates the Constitution.
Rule
Under the Court's longstanding nondelegation approach, a statute is constitutionally permissible if it contains a discernable standard adequate under the Court's precedents. Where the statute does not lack such a discernable standard, the Court will uphold it rather than single it out for special treatment.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Congress enacts the Consumer Data Safety Act, directing the Federal Data Bureau to issue rules "necessary to protect fair and secure digital markets." A software distributor in Seattle is fined under a bureau rule and argues that the statute is unconstitutional because the standard is too broad.
Under the controlling approach reflected in the opinion, how should a court most likely rule on the nondelegation challenge?
Explanation. Justice Alito's opinion states that Congress may not delegate legislative power, but also emphasizes that since 1935 the Court has uniformly rejected nondelegation challenges to statutes using very broad standards. His vote to affirm rested on the conclusion that he could not say the statute lacked a discernable standard adequate under the Court's longstanding approach. So a court applying that same approach would likely uphold this statute rather than single it out for invalidation.