October Term 2018 · Docket 17-6086
Does the Sex Offender Registration Act violate the nondelegation doctrine?
the sides that brought the case argue the law gives prosecutors unchecked power to expand registration rules. The government claims the statute sets clear limits.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Baumgartel argued the delegation provision grants unguided power to the top prosecutor.
She claimed this combines criminal law-making and executive power in a prohibited way.
Mr. Wall argued the text of the Act supports the government's interpretation.
He stated the law is best interpreted in the way the government has described.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 14-26 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 14-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 35-6 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 35-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 16-19 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 16-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 10-19 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 10-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-10 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-16 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 22-26 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 22-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 22-30 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 22-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-30 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 34-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 34-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 6-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 6-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 26-30 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 26-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 34-6 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 34-6
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests whether Congress can delegate rulemaking power to the Attorney General without setting specific standards. the sides that brought the case claim this delegation is unconstitutional. The government argues the statute provides sufficient guidance.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 10-19 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 10-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-10 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-10
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 2, 2018.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 9-15
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the Court to strike down the registration requirement as unconstitutional.
The government wants the Court to uphold the registration requirement as valid.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 10-19 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 10-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-10 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-10
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the law grants unguided power to expand criminal laws.
The government argues the statute text supports a broad but limited reading.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 10-19 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 10-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-10 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-10
What the justices asked
Justice Ginsburg asked if past offenders would avoid registration under the side that brought the case's view.
Justice Kagan noted statutory language supports the government's reading of the law.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 14-26 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 14-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 35-6 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 35-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 16-19 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 16-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-16 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 22-26 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 22-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 22-30 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 22-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-30 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 34-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 34-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 6-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 6-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 26-30 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 26-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 34-6 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 34-6
Why it matters
This dispute determines whether prosecutors can expand criminal registration rules without new legislation. It affects the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch. It impacts the rights of individuals subject to registration requirements.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 10-19 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 10-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-10 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-10
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 14-26 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 14-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 35-6 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 35-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 16-19 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 16-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-16 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 22-26 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 22-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 22-30 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 22-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-30 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 34-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 34-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 6-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 6-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 26-30 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 26-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 34-6 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 34-6
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 10-19 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 10-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-10 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 10-19 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 10-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-10 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-10
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.