588 U.S. 128 (2019)
Congress could let the Attorney General decide how SORNA applies to older convictions — but only a plurality agreed on why.
Good law. The result stands, but no single rationale won a majority and five justices signalled interest in revisiting the underlying doctrine. Binds every court in the country on the federal question it decides.
Herman Gundy, convicted before SORNA, was prosecuted for failing to register. He argued that 34 U.S.C. § 20913(d), which lets the Attorney General “specify the applicability” of SORNA to pre-Act offenders, handed legislative power to the executive branch unconstitutionally.
The conviction was affirmed, 5–3. A four-justice plurality read the statute, drawing on Reynolds, as requiring the Attorney General to apply SORNA to all pre-Act offenders as soon as feasible, which passes the “intelligible principle” test. Justice Alito concurred only in the result, writing that he would support reconsidering the doctrine if a majority were willing. Three justices dissented; Justice Kavanaugh did not take part.
Gundy confirmed that SORNA covers people convicted before 2006. It is also why the case is cited far beyond registry law: it signalled that five justices were open to tightening limits on Congress handing power to agencies.
There is no majority opinion supporting the plurality’s reasoning, and the dissent observed that the case “resolves nothing” about the doctrine’s future. It did not address Ex Post Facto or other challenges to SORNA.
Last verified against the sources above on September 30, 2026.
These are plain-language summaries of court decisions, written for general education. A ruling binds only the courts beneath the court that issued it, later decisions and new laws can change what it means, and how it applies to any one person depends on facts a summary cannot capture. Read the opinion itself, and talk to a lawyer licensed in your state before relying on any case. This page is not legal advice.