Transcript of Oral Argument in Gundy
The transcript of oral arguments in Gundy v. United States, that was heard before the Supreme Court of the United States a few hours ago, is now available here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2018/17-6086_9ol1.pdf
We wanted to share the transcript as soon as we knew it became available. Commentary will likely follow.
Not an attorney but from a layman point of view I hope our side getting the last say was a good thing. I am curious to hear how the attorneys think our side arguing that the “Attorney General believed that his discretion was to essentially undertake the fundamental policy determination as to whether the costs outweigh the benefits” plays out. Do the Justices before making their decision now research this, which to me would be in our favor. If they do and see the recent evidence that costs are high (excess punitive laws) and the benefits overstated (safety) since the problem of safety was overstated (frightening and high recidivism), would that lead in our favor? Would it also be an opportunity to rectify SCOTUS’s reliance on the “frightening and high” myth? Or is the issue they will address much narrower than that? And more troubling even if we win Gundy, can congress not just merely rewrite the law and make it retroactive and so we have won nothing?
Does the fact the Attorney General did not view this as an issue of feasibility or practicality help our cause, since it seemed to me it was part of the government’s points?
Hope these are not off the mark questions as this is some heady complicated legal reading and I may be way off focus. So looking forward to hearing from the way more knowledgeable minds.
Recidivism rates have nothing to do with what is at issue in this case. The non-delegation doctrine has nothing to do with costs vs. benefits or the “frightening and high” mistake.
Thanks for clarifying! I asked whether it is a factor only because it is mentioned in the argument and thought it may be a considered vis-a-vis the Attorney General using such as justification to retroactively apply (which I gather are the delegation powers in question).
Fingers crossed that we win!!!
So, FAC, IF this passes and the people who were just added on—- Pre 2004
Is this what the Ex Post Facto suit is going to go after? Removal of Fla. Registrants pre 2004?
Should I start saving my money for an attorney for removal of my name from the registry
(TRUST ME—Clear My Case will never see a dime from me–LOL)
Even if Gundy prevails, what is to prevent congress from going back to the drawing board and specifically passing new legislation saying their intent is an all-inclusive, nationwide, retroactively imposed SORNA system on anyone convicted of a sex offense regardless of the date of offense?
The questions posed by the Justices seemed to favor Gundy in my humble opinion. Just not sure a ruling in our favor will translate into much changing for Pre-SORNA registrants. I’m a 1991 offense date. So if Gundy prevails, am I and others whose crimes pre-date SORNA free to move to any state we choose and not register as the government’s argument seemed to suggest? And dear me, what about those “Tribal” folks just chomping at the bit to get off SORNA and re-offend?
No, but Congress is forced by this ruling to rewrite the law to cover those who have not offended in over 12 years, there will be an opportunity to revisit those “frightening and high” recidivism rates.
“if” Congress is forced
I think it went quite well. I would like to find an audio version of this so I can hear it. At first reading it I thought it was going to be – ugh – although I think they press on both sides just to test the waters.
but then, after Gorsuch spoke and as expected of what he might say, it went pretty well. I think he knows this is all BS. lol. I think they all know this as well. We’ll see what happens.
There were a couple of good tidbits. Gorsuch was refreshing and Justice Kagan, said, “Do you think that if there were a new attorney general who came in and said, you know, I think that this registration stuff has just gone overboard, and I’m going to start making some exceptions with respect to pre-Act offenders, because I think
that’s just unfair to penalize them for the rest of their lives, could the attorney general do that?”
Just the fact that she suggested (in a different context) that it’s overboard and unfair shows what’s in the back of their minds.
Yes, I loved that part, and I think that government attorney responded with, yea I don’t think the attorney general would that I believe. lol or something in that context. ( I would of loved to have seen the facial reactions of the justices, especially Gorsuch. Some things were quite amusing in a subtle sarcastic way, because this whole thing is just ridiculous and they pointed that out in their own way or words. I agree, it was very refreshing.
yea after that Kagan part about the overboard and unfair, the attorney said he doesn’t think the attorney general ” could ” do that, but it is more like ” would ” do that, If you know what I mean and certainly not the current attorney general who is hell bent in toughening crimes.
Loved everything Gorsuch had to say. It is scary to think that the attorney general can wake up one morning and decide to implement a rule that would affect thousands of people without those people even knowing it. But that is exactly what has been happening. Thousands of new people can be caught in it from one day to another without a warning and then there is the penalties of failure to registering it. The lady attorney for Gundy did very well. That SG attorney not so good. I got a good vibe about this.
@Bobby, et al,
You will be able to hear a recording of these arguments Friday afternoon/evening after the Friday conference. It will be posted at the SCOTUS website: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio/2018
@TS
Awesome ! Thank you.
@Bobby, et al
Gundy oral arguments is now posted for listening to and downloading at the link above.
@Bobby, et al,
I’ve been informed by another interested party of this case that Oyez has audio now, too, of the Gundy oral arguments hearing. You can read the text as it scrolls along with the audio. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-6086
Let me see if I got this right. Even if this passes and I am before 2004, the Federal Government will take me off “the list”, but ass-backwards Florida will still keep me on the list because it is “the State Law”?????
Correct – in essence.
So how does this actually help? Are we looking for precedence for a case for florida?
So pre SORNA would be removed from Federal Registry which is only a catch all for state registries.
I am gathering that being removed at the federal level would also mean no more Passport Stamping or encrypting, and no more IML notices. These are all federal.
Thoughts?
That is a fair assumption, though unclear at this point.
Some laws are not based on registration status but having ever been convicted.
I think it went well. The argument on behalf of the government was rather weak I believe. Petitioner’s attorney did well presenting and at the end for the rebuttal. In general, it’s making the attorney general sound like a monarch ruler or some emperor that can do what he wants when we wants with the lives of thousands of people. That’s just wrong.
This has nothing to do with your issue.
For the state of Florida there is a consideration clause that if you are pardoned in your state you could be taken off the repot system, however I think florida keeps you on their computer list forever. This is my interpretation of the law and considerations for removal without forgiveness
I think the Lady Attorney address the issue straight to the point If Sonar get drop for those who where pre-act would be a step in the right direction. Even if a person with a Florida conviction of 1991 and released in 2011. All I saying is that I live Arizona now with a Florida conviction. There is always the chance that the Judge here will release me in 35 months (If I make it that far lol). A lot of Judges know these Laws are totally B.S.! Most of the laws were made for reelection purposes. However, a lot of people can get on with there lives too,If the judges rule in the petitioner favor. Mr Wall has a very weak argument, but because he (the Gov.) has a due process right the Justices heard his side as well.The Justices all know it is bull$hit now!!
Congress gave the attorney general a “blank check” to decide how, when and who should be prosecuted. “We say that vague criminal laws must be stricken. – Gorsuch.
Ms. Baumgartel argued on point and with right timing too, word for word. I think the justices liked her even drawing laughs from them.
I would have to hear an audio version of the arguments or a video.
I hope this same panel gets more cases pertaining to us. Especially the Colorado case if it gets to that point.
Man I love Gorsuch. He was really drilling that government attorney – Mr Wall real good. Even when he tried to go around Gorsuch’s question, Gorsuch demanded him to answer his question, and the poor guy was like, ” ummm, I , umm, I, umm, I don’t know ” … hahah. I would of been like, screw this, government doesn’t pay me enough to take this crap. lol
Even though he is a government attorney and against our own interest, I respect people for saying that they don’t really know. I really do. Better than people trying to make up BS and worst, not really good at spitting BS (bad or obvious liars)
It is a beautiful thing when both sides of the panel come to our side.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/2/ruth-bader-ginsburg-neil-gorsuch-wary-sex-offender/
I’m not sure why Sean is referencing 2004. SORNA became law in 2006, so what’s the significance of 2004?
JZ,
That is what Broward Sheriffs Office told me. That from 2004 the laws of restriction (parks, ect…) did not apply to me. It was ex post facto. I think that is when Florida/Ron Book got all stupid with the restrictions.
Let me ask all of you this…
The way the law is written in Florida, you cant be within 1,000-2,500 feet of a day care, school, park, bus stop, or “anyplace where children may congregate”.
Now Johnny and his dad set up a basketball hoop outside their house 5 doors down from me and the neighborhood kids play hoops there.
Does that mean I can be arrested because kids are playing basketball 5 doors down from me??? And “congregating there??”
AGAIN, BSO remains silent and stupid when presented with facts and asked simple questions.
(FDLE passes the buck and says “ask BSO”)
I also asked about the “park thing”…. Does that mean that I am banned from fishing in Everglades National PARK.?? I live in Oakland PARK—am I banned from there too??
Again silence from the people who are supposed to know the law.
Sean,
Coward County’s Sex Offender laws seem to have been started in 2009:
https://library.municode.com/fl/broward_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH21MIOFPR_ARTXISEOFSEPROR
As for Florida law, I believe this is the law that originated in 2004 regarding residency restrictions:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=sex+offender&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.215.html
What is the general timelime to make a decision on these cases. I have seen where oral arguments are made but no decision is heard for 6 months to several yrs later.
Good arguments from plaintiff side, too much hem-hawing, not answering questions, and I don’t knows from gov. side
The SCOTUS usually issues its decision within three months of oral argument; only the very rare case bounces around the chambers for more than six
months,and almost every decision is issued in the same term in which the case is argued.
How will this affect the new passport stamp for an offense in Florida in 1998, and also the travel requirements? It is all very confusing, so I am hoping someone might know the answers to how all this will affect me. I pray that it passes, maybe I can get some dignity back.
Not at all, as those fall under a different law, presenting its own issues, that probably is being challenged separately.
@ Herman Gundy and his Attorney A BIG THANK YOU!!!! For Taking this $hit to court. Thank you !!!!!!! 1 million times from my heart!!
If this passes where pre-sorna individuals no longer fall under this law then how does that affect those people in a real world everyday situation? My offense was back in 1998 and I have completed my sentence including any probation/parole 12 years ago. If I move to a different state like Massachusetts which is where I’m originally from that hasn’t implemented sorna yet and eventually I was taken off Massachusett’s registry after X number of years then I wouldn’t be on a registry in Mass or the federal level? I would have to petition to be removed from Florida’s registry if I no longer live here especially after a certain amount of time passes? I know being removed from Florida’s registry is near impossible but maybe eventually there would be a law that if you don’t live here any longer and have not returned in so many years then removal may be possible.
If we raise enough funds for the Out of State Challenge, then that may eventually make your situation and choices more simple, regardless of the outcome in Gundy. I have been donating to it on a semi-regular basis.
Good luck with that trying to reach that goal I had sent money myself I had also reached out to other states only one state called me back on phone which was Arkansas The lady told me she was going to send Gail an email. I ASKED FOR HELP in trying to find other states that Advocates for Sex Offenders. But it seem “it is every man for themselves” I know they are out there reading this I contacted four states already by email and only three replied back. I wanna help as much as I can but I have other problems as well like Glaucoma it prevents me from sitting here to do any extended research on internet for a long period of time Once again If I had help looking for these other places I be willing to call and send emails like I done for the last four states,
Mine was a federal case all probation no special circumstances. Would this case affect me any different here in floridA as it was a federal case? Was level 0 then Level 1 in nyc. not published until i made the mistake of coming here. Was taken in on a failure to register but the case was dropped by state: they filed a no information so technically there was no case.
1996 was date of offense 1999 was date of resolution.
I have a 1983 offense Date in fl. completed a 1999 plea and was later ,not a part of the plea required to register. my parents are getting older, my children, and grandchildren are getting older. Now we cannot travel, we’re on house arrest basically. It’s never going to be better. Our lives have become a political vote getter. The more retroactive punishment they apply the more votes. We are screwed. Say goodbye to your family now, because there ultimate goal is to put everyone in jail
A great video by Judge Andrew Napolitano:
https://youtu.be/1uTR3qNW70w
The Constitution represented a coup from the beginning, and it’s a dead letter today. The Declaration of Independence, however, is a truly radical libertarian document still worthy of consideration. Judge Andrew Napolitiano, our Distinguished Scholar in Law and Jurisprudence, recently gave a rousing talk at Mises University on the Declaration’s natural law tradition–and how federal courts relentlessly and successfully attacked the principles it represented. This is Judge Nap at his scorching best, and you won’t want to miss his comments on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
#JudgeAndrewNapolitano #DeclarationOfIndependence #Constitution #BrettKavanaugh #law #federal #courts #SupremeCourt
For Gundy V. United States oral arguments audio, you can find it here.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2018/17-6086
you are welcome.
Thank you
A true constitutionalist, as Kavanaugh claims to be, has no choice but to call out SORNA for the fraud that it is. Ex post facto is illegal, plain and simple, there are no exceptions. Now that he has been confirmed, let’s hope he truly will support and defend the constitution!
Agree. So why have judges upheld ex post facto punishments? By allowing themselves to be persuaded that they are not intended as punishments but as “a non-punitive civil administrative regulatory regime” aimed at public safety!
Thank goodness some state supreme courts (and at least one Federal circuit?) have been looking at this again more recently. It is not the issue at hand in this case, Gundy. But I hope that FAC’s own ex post facto lawsuit will help clear up this issue in Florida.
Associate Justice Kavanaugh should certainly understand the notion of “Public Shaming” as being a mode of punishment? Perhaps he understands how innocent children, spouses are hurt by “Public Shaming?” Let us all hope he rules accordingly should an ex post facto case beyond the scope of Gundy come before the SCOTUS.