Reynolds v. United States
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Oct 3, 2011
|Jan 23, 2012||7-2||Breyer||OT 2011|
Holding: The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act does not require pre-Act offenders to register before the Attorney General validly specifies that the Act’s registration provisions apply to them.
Plain English Holding: The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act does not, by itself, automatically require sex offenders who were convicted before the Act went into effect to register with police in the areas where they live and work. Instead, those sex offenders are only required to register once the Attorney General of the United States has issued a valid rule requiring them to register.
Judgment: Reversed, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on January 23, 2012. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Ginsburg.
- Recent opinions: In Plain English (Amy Howe)
- Opinion analysis: An exercise in statutory construction (Steven Schwinn)
- The October sitting, week one: In Plain English (Amy Howe)
- Standing for sex offenders: Oral argument review in Reynolds v. United States (Steven Schwinn)
- Argument preview: Standing to challenge sex offender rule (Steven Schwinn)
Briefs and Documents
Merits Briefs for the Petitioner
Merits Briefs for the Respondent