This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Ms. Cain, reynolds argues that, because the Attorney General’s authority under subsection (d) was valid, he had no obligation to register under SORNA and therefore was not subject to its criminal penalties.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, the Court is considering whether the Wetterling Act is retroactive.
The parties also dispute what counts as a reasonable time for a defendant to comply with SORNA under the final, interim, or earlier rules.
Background and question before the Court
According to Chief Justice Roberts, one question presented is whether the Wetterling Act applies retroactively.
According to Justice Sotomayor, another question is whether there were any criminal enforcement options for the Attorney General under the Wetterling Act for conduct that occurred before 1996.
According to Justice Breyer, the Court also asked what constitutes a “reasonable time” for compliance with SORNA.
What each side argues
Petitioner – Billy Joe Reynolds
According to Ms. Cain, reynolds’ counsel argues that, because the Attorney General’s authority under subsection (d) was valid, Reynolds had no duty to register under SORNA and therefore could not be punished under its criminal provisions.
According to Ms. Cain, reynolds’ counsel cites a footnote indicating that the government may be deemed to have substantially implemented SORNA when it registers pre‑enactment offenders who remain in the system.
Respondent – United States
According to Ms. Arbus Sherry, the United States, through counsel, argues that offenders who are already registered under SORNA need only keep their registration information current and updated.
What happened at oral argument
During argument, Justices asked questions about the retroactivity of the Wetterling Act, the existence of criminal enforcement options before 1996, and what constitutes a reasonable time for SORNA compliance.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- b8b5a0dfd96efcdd4cf1-r1-238955ce48d17b98.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 24, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.