In the case of Gundy v. United States, Herman Avery Gundy was convicted for failing to register as a sex offender in both Maryland and New York under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). The main issue raised by Gundy was that Congress had unconstitutionally delegated its legislative powers to the Attorney General when it allowed him to decide how SORNA should be applied retroactively. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 decision that this delegation did not violate the non-delegation doctrine - a principle which prevents Congress from transferring its legislative power to another branch of government. The court held that because SORNA clearly outlined what factors should guide implementation decisions, it provided an "intelligible principle" for guidance and thus did not constitute an unconstitutional delegation of authority.

In the dissenting opinion for Gundy v. United States, Justice Gorsuch argued that Congress had unconstitutionally delegated its legislative power to the Attorney General by allowing him to decide whether and how to apply the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) retroactively. He contended that this violated the nondelegation doctrine, which prohibits Congress from transferring its legislative powers to another branch of government or an administrative agency. According to Gorsuch, SORNA gave too much discretion without clear guidelines on how it should be applied retrospectively. He also criticized previous court rulings that upheld broad delegations of authority as long as they included an "intelligible principle" guiding their use. For Gorsuch, such a vague standard could not justify giving away core legislative responsibilities.