InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Gundy v. United States

The Court considered a challenge to the part of SORNA letting the Attorney General specify how registration requirements apply to pre-enactment sex offenders, and held that it did not violate the nondelegation doctrine.· AI-written

139 S. Ct. 2116 · No. 17-6086 · 2018 term · Roberts Court

Decided Jun 20, 2019 · argued Oct 2, 2018

Miscellaneous · Miscellaneous

Majority opinion: Elena Kagan

The voteMajorityDissent

5–35 in the majority, 3 in dissent

3 dissents (6–3)

Affirmed. Gundy lost.

What this ruling means

Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).

Gundy was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Gundy v. United States, 588 U.S. 128 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case which held 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d), part of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act ("SORNA"), does not violate the nondelegation doctrine. 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]". Congress may delegate legislative power to the executive branch, so long as an "intelligible principle" is provided in the statute. The outcome of the case could have greatly influenced the broad delegations of power Congress has made to the federal executive branch, but it did not.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2018 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianSotomayorGinsburgBreyerKaganJ. RobertsGorsuchAlitoThomas

Majority(5)

Dissent(3)

Did not take part: Brett Kavanaugh.

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
GundyPerson convicted of crime
Respondent
United StatesUnited States
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Article I, Section 1 (delegation of powers)
Kind of law
Constitution
Decided by
Judicial review (national level)
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jun 20, 2019DecidedDecided · Decided 5–3: affirmed. Gundy lost.
  2. Oct 2, 2018ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: affirmed.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the New York Southern U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

16 other argued cases since 1946 on miscellaneous, newest first.

  1. Lucia v. SEC138 S. Ct. 2044Jun 21, 2018 · 138 S. Ct. 2044Miscellaneous7–27–2 band

  2. Hawaii et al. v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs et al.556 U.S. 163Mar 31, 2009 · 556 U.S. 163Miscellaneous9–0Unanimous band

  3. Department of Commerce, et al. v. United States House of Representatives et al.525 U.S. 316Jan 25, 1999 · 525 U.S. 316Miscellaneous6–36–3 band
  4. William J. Clinton, President of the United States, et al. v. City of New York, et al.Landmark · Separation of powers524 U.S. 417Jun 25, 1998 · 524 U.S. 417Miscellaneous6–36–3 band

  5. Ed Plaut, et ux., et al. v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., et al.Landmark · Separation of powers514 U.S. 211Apr 18, 1995 · 514 U.S. 211Miscellaneous7–27–2 band

  6. Thomas Freytag, et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue501 U.S. 868Jun 27, 1991 · 501 U.S. 868Miscellaneous9–0Unanimous band

  7. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, et al. v. Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., et al.501 U.S. 252Jun 17, 1991 · 501 U.S. 252Miscellaneous6–36–3 band
  8. United States v. Stuart et al.489 U.S. 353Feb 28, 1989 · 489 U.S. 353Miscellaneous9–0Unanimous band
  9. Mistretta v. United States488 U.S. 361Jan 18, 1989 · 488 U.S. 361Miscellaneous8–18–1 band
  10. Morrison, Independent Counsel v. Olson et al.Landmark · Separation of powers487 U.S. 654Jun 27, 1988 · 487 U.S. 654Miscellaneous7–18–1 band

  11. Phillips Petroleum Co. et al. v. Mississippi et al.484 U.S. 469Feb 23, 1988 · 484 U.S. 469Miscellaneous5–36–3 band
  12. Bowsher, Comptroller General of the United States v. Synar, Member of Congress, et al.Landmark · Separation of powers478 U.S. 714Jul 7, 1986 · 478 U.S. 714Miscellaneous7–27–2 band

  13. First National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba462 U.S. 611Jun 17, 1983 · 462 U.S. 611Miscellaneous6–36–3 band
  14. United States v. Will et al.449 U.S. 200Dec 15, 1980 · 449 U.S. 200Miscellaneous8–0Unanimous band

  15. Granville-Smith v. Granville-Smith349 U.S. 1Apr 11, 1955 · 349 U.S. 1Miscellaneous5–36–3 band
  16. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. et al. v. SawyerLandmark · Domestic343 U.S. 579Jun 2, 1952 · 343 U.S. 579Miscellaneous6–36–3 band

Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.