Reynolds v. United States
132 S. Ct. 975
| SCOTUS | 2012Background
- Act creates national sex offender registry requirements and federal penalties for non-registration.
- Pre-Act offenders include individuals convicted before July 27, 2006; issue is when their registration obligations attach.
- Attorney General has authority to specify applicability of registration requirements to pre-Act offenders (16913(d)).
- Interim Rule (Feb. 28, 2007) specified applicability to pre-Act offenders; validity disputed in Reynolds case.
- Reynolds, a pre-Act offender, moved to dismiss; appellate court disagreed on when requirements attach; Supreme Court granted review.
- Courts split across circuits on whether pre-Act offenders must register immediately or only upon AG specification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do pre-Act offenders have to register before AG specifies applicability? | Reynolds argues immediate applicability. | Government argues AG specification delays applicability. | No; applicability depends on AG specification. |
| What is the meaning of AG’s authority to 'specify the applicability' (16913(d))? | Specifically confers power to apply, not exempt. | Specifically permits making exceptions. | Authority to specify applies, not merely exceptions. |
| Is the Interim Rule valid under nondelegation/APA? | Interim Rule invalid due to nondelegation/notice-and-comment. | Interim Rule proper; within AG's discretion. | Case remanded to determine if Interim Rule valid specification. |
| Does the text require immediate registration for pre-Act offenders? | Text implies universal pre-Act registration. | Text allows AG to determine applicability. | Text supports AG-specification approach, not automatic immediate registration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carr v. United States, 560 U.S. 438 (2010) (pre-Act offenders linked to travel interstate registration)
- United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997) (canon of lenity; fair warning in criminal statutes)
- Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 498 U.S. 395 (1991) (specific provisions control over general ones)
- Bloate v. United States, 559 U.S. 196 (2010) (same principle of statutory interpretation)
- Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) (nondelegation concerns in regulatory statutes)