United States v. Adam Fernandez, 710 F.3d 847

Consolidated appeals challenge SORNA's constitutionality under the nondelegation doctrine.
SORNA requires sex offenders to register and update location, employment, and other information.
For pre-enactment offenders, 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d) grants the Attorney General authority to specify applicability.
AG did not apply SORNA’s registration requirements to preenactment offenders until 2007, causing circuit split and varied lower court outcomes.
Supreme Court later held that preenactment applicability requires a valid AG specification (Reynolds v. United States).
Court reviews nondelegation challenges de novo and has previously upheld SORNA delegation in related cases.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether AG's determination of applicability to preenactment offenders violates the nondelegation doctrine	Kuehl rejected the delegation; appellants argue no intelligible principle	AG's role provides intelligible principle guiding delegation	No violation; delegation is intelligible and narrow

United States v. May, 535 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2008) (SORNA applies to offenders from enactment date according to district and Supreme Court later clarified)
Reynolds v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 975 (2012) (preenactment offset requires valid AG specification)
Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (U.S. 1989) (intelligible principle allows executive implementation of statutes)
Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (U.S. 1944) (principle to set fair and equitable prices upheld as intelligible guidance)
National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190 (U.S. 1943) (public interest standard upheld for delegated regulation)
Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1935) (nondelegation limits acknowledged with narrow exceptions)
American Power & Light Co. v. SEC, 329 U.S. 90 (U.S. 1946) (upheld delegation with intelligible principle)