Gundy v. United States.LJNDD2I: Difference between revisions
m (Text replacement - "Category:Community" to "") |
m (Text replacement - "The Administrative State Project" to "Ballotpedia's administrative state coverage") |
||
| Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
*[[Nondelegation doctrine]] | *[[Nondelegation doctrine]] | ||
*[[Supreme Court of the United States]] | *[[Supreme Court of the United States]] | ||
*[[ | *[[Ballotpedia's administrative state coverage]] | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
Latest revision as of 23:17, 14 June 2023
The correct answer was Gundy v. United States.
 | |
| Gundy v. United States | |
| Docket number: 17-6086 | |
| Term: 2018 | |
| Important dates | |
| Argument: October 2, 2018 Decided: TBD | |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch | |
Gundy v. United States was a 2018 term case before the United States Supreme Court that questioned whether the U.S. attorney general's authority to issue regulations pursuant to the Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act (SORNA) violates the nondelegation doctrine. The case arrived on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Oral argument in the case happened on October 2, 2018.[1][2]
Why it matters: The United States Supreme Court has not invalidated a congressional action on nondelegation grounds since its 1935 decisions in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States and Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan. For more information about historical applications of the nondelegation doctrine, click here.
You can review the lower court's opinion here.[3]
Background
| Administrative State |
|---|
|
| Five Pillars of the Administrative State |
| • Judicial deference • Nondelegation • Executive control • Procedural rights • Agency dynamics |
| Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia |
What is the nondelegation doctrine?
- See also: Nondelegation doctrine
The nondelegation doctrine is a principle in constitutional and administrative law that holds that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to executive agencies or private entities. It is derived from an interpretation of Article I of the United States Constitution and the separation of powers principle. Although congressional delegation to the executive branch has been an issue in federal court cases since at least the early 19th century, the legal test used by the Supreme Court to apply the nondelegation doctrine was established in its 1928 decision in J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States.[4][5][6][7]
Case background
After pleading guilty to federal drug charges in Pennsylvania, Herman Gundy was on supervised release in Maryland when he was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to 20 years in prison. He served his sentence for sexual assault and was transferred to a federal facility in Pennsylvania to serve his sentence for violating his supervised release. Gundy was later transferred from the Pennsylvania facility to a halfway house in New York. As part of the transfer, Gundy received permission from the Federal Bureau of Prisons to travel unsupervised by bus from Pennsylvania to New York.[2][5]
Gundy was indicted in January 2013 on a charge that he had failed to register as a sex offender after arriving in New York as required by SORNA. He was convicted and sentenced to time served and five years of supervised release. Gundy appealed the conviction and argued that he had not been advised of the registration requirements. He also claimed that his case predated SORNA, which was passed in 2006, and that the legislation was silent regarding its application to preexisting cases. Gundy claimed that Congress had violated the nondelegation doctrine by delegating the interpretation of SORNA's application to preexisting cases to the U.S. attorney general without providing guidance. The United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit affirmed Gundy's conviction, and he appealed to the United States Supreme Court.[2][8]
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case but stated that it would not consider the full scope of Gundy's petition for review. Instead, the court's review will focus on the question of whether Congress improperly delegated the authority to interpret and regulate SORNA's application to preexisting cases to the U.S. attorney general.[8]
Petitioner's challenge
The petitioner, Gundy, is challenging the holding of the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Gundy argues that SORNA's delegation of authority to the U.S. attorney general to interpret and regulate SORNA's application to preexisting cases violates the nondelegation doctrine.
Question presented
| Question presented: "Whether the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act’s delegation of authority to the attorney general to issue regulations under 42 U.S.C. § 16913 violates the nondelegation doctrine."[8] |
Oral argument
Oral arguments were scheduled for October 2, 2018.[8]
Audio
- Audio of oral argument:[9]
Transcript
- Read the oral argument transcript here.
Outcome
The case is pending adjudication before the United States Supreme Court.
Opinions about the case
Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Mark Miller wrote in The Hill that ‘’our Founding Fathers delegated the lawmaking authority to Congress, and then made legislators responsible to the people by allowing the people to vote them in or out of office every two years, according to how Congress abused or properly used its lawmaking power. Congress insulates itself from this accountability by shirking its lawmaking responsibility and handing it off to bureaucrats. The Supreme Court should use the Gundy case to put a stop to this purposeful avoidance of accountability.”[10]
Courts writer for Slate Mark Joseph Stern said many “progressives fear that, once resuscitated, the [nondelegation doctrine] could be used to strike down all manner of economic regulations [...] These days, Congress hands off most regulatory authority to a slew of federal agencies situated in the executive branch. A court concerned about nondelegation could strike down a vast range of liberal legislation under the doctrine. Labor laws and environmental protections would be especially vulnerable, since Congress gives agencies a broad mandate to interpret and implement these measures. If the Supreme Court renders that mandate unconstitutional, federal rules that protect workers’ rights, collective bargaining, clean air, and endangered species would fall.”[11]
The Cato Institute argued in its amicus brief that, “The Vesting Clauses in the Constitution’s first three articles establish a tripartite government of divided authority. While these may overlap at the margins, each branch retains a core set of powers such that it may check and balance the others. To permit delegation from one to another—for purported efficiency gains—undermines that original design. After all, why should Congress deliberate, make judgments, and stand accountable for each determination when it can license the executive to apply purportedly greater wisdom or technocratic expertise?”[12]
See also
- Nondelegation doctrine
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Ballotpedia's administrative state coverage
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Oyez, "Gundy v. United States," accessed July 12, 2018
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Cato Institute, Gundy v. United States, accessed July 12, 2018
- ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, "Gundy v. United States" Opinion, June 22, 2017
- ↑ Legal Information Institute, "Nondelegation Doctrine," accessed September 5, 2017
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 SCOTUSblog, "SCOTUS for law students: Non-delegation doctrine returns after long hiatus," December 4, 2014 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "blog" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ FindLaw, "Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc.," February 27, 2001
- ↑ Justia, "Delegation and Individual Liberties," accessed September 10, 2017
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 SCOTUSblog, "Gundy v. United States," accessed July 13, 2018
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Gundy v. United States, argued October 2, 2018
- ↑ The Hill, "Will Supreme Court push Congress to get back to its job of making law?" June 4, 2018
- ↑ Slate, "The Supreme Court May Revive a Legal Theory Last Used to Strike Down New Deal Laws," March 5, 2018
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Brief for the Cato Institute and Cause of Action Institute as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner," May 24, 2018
