# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 12 61

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Kev in Lam on t Br ewer

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Ho t Sp rin gs

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 6, 2 01 4
Fil ed : Se pt em

be r 10 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, BYE, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Kev in Brewe r was co nv ic te d of fai li ng to reg is te r as a se x of fen de r un de r

18 U.S.C. § 22 50 (a) an d se nt en ced to 18 m on th s in pr is on an d 15 y ears of su pe rv is ed

rel eas e. Brewe r m ov ed to va cat e hi s co nv ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 55

. The di st ric t

co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n. Brewe r th en m ov ed to reco ns id er an d req ue st ed a cert ifi cat e

of ap pe al ab il it y

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Brewe r’s m ot io n to reco ns id er bu t gr an te dB r e w e r a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y on two is su es

. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 2 8

U.S.C. § 1 29 1, we re ve rs e an d re m an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

In 20 06

, Co ng res s en act ed th e Sex Offen de r an d Reg is tra ti on Not ifi cat io n Act
(“ SORNA”), whi ch es ta bl is he d a na ti on al reg is tra ti on syste m fo r pe rs on s co nv ic te d

of sex off en se s u nd er s ta te an d fe de ral laws . 42 U.S.C. §§ 16 90 1– 16 99 1. SORNA

“ req ui r e s t h o s e co nv ic te d of cert ai n se x cri m es to pr ov id e st at e go ve rn m en ts wit h
(an d to up da te ) in fo rm at io n, su ch as na m es an d cu rren t ad dr es s e s , f o r in cl us io n on

st at e an d fed eral se x of

fen de r reg is tri es .” Reynol ds v. Uni te d St at es , 13 2 S. Ct

. 97 5,

97 8 (2 01 2) . Spe ci fic al ly, un de r SORNA, a pe rs on is cri m in al ly liab le for fai lu re t o

reg is te r if he (1 ) is req ui red to reg is te r un de r SORNA; (2 ) is a se x of fen de r by reas on

of a f e d e ral co nv ic ti on or , al te rn at iv el y , is a pe rs on who “ tra ve ls in in te rs ta te or

fo rei g n c o m

m erce , or en te rs or le av es , or res id es in

, In di an co un try”; an d
(3 ) “ kn owi ng ly fai ls to reg is te r or up da te a reg is tra ti on as req ui red ” by SORNA.

18 U.S.C. § 2 25 0( a).

SORNA’s reg is tra ti on req ui rem en ts wer e no t im m ed ia te ly ap pl ic ab le to

pe rs on s who

, li ke Brewe r, were co nv ic te d of a se x of fen se pr io r to th e en act m en t of

S O R N A. Reynol ds

, 13 2 S. Ct

. at 97 8. SORNA m an da te d th at th e reg is tr a t i o n

req ui rem en ts wou ld no t ap pl y to “ pr e-Act of fen de rs un ti l th e Att or ne y Gen eral

sp eci fie s th at th ey do ap pl y .” Id .; se e al so 42 U

. S

. C

. § 16 91 3( d) (g ran ti ng th e

Att or ne y Gen eral ru le -m ak in g au th or it y reg ard in g ap pl ic ab il it y ). On Feb ru ary 28

, 20 07

, th e Att or ne y Gen era l p r o mu lg at ed an In te rim Ru le th at m ad e reg is tra ti on

req ui rem en ts ap pl ic ab le to al l pr e-Act of fen de rs

. See 72 Fed

. Reg

. 88 94

, 88 97
(Feb

. 28

, 20 07 ). The Att or ne y Gen eral di d no t es ta bl is h a pe rio d fo r pr epr om ul ga ti on no ti ce an d co m

m en t an d bypas se d th e 30 -d ay pu bl ic at io n req ui rem en t

be cau se , he as se rte d, th e r e w a s “g o od cau se ” to waiv e th os e req ui rem en ts

. See 72

Fed

. Reg

. 88 94

, 88 96 –9 7. Thr ee m on th s la te r th e Att or ne y Gen eral pu bl is he d th e

-2

-pr op os ed “ SMAR T” Gui de li ne s to “ in te rp ret an d im pl em en t SORNA.” 72 Fed

. Reg

. 30 ,21 0 (Ma y 30

, 20 07 ); se e Uni te d St at es v. Knu ts on , 68 0 F.3 d 10 21

, 10 23 (8 th Ci r.

20 12 ). The “ SMAR T” Gui de li ne s be cam e effe ct iv e on Aug us t 1, 20 08

, an d

“ reaf fir m ed th e in te rim ru le ap pl y in g SORNA to pr e-Act of fen de rs .” Knu ts on , 68 0

F.3 d at 10 23 ; se e 73 Fed

. Reg

. 38 ,03 0 (J ul y 2, 20 08 ). Tho ug h th e Att or ne y Gen eral 1

m ai nt a i n e d th at SORNA ha d be en effe ct iv e to al l pr e-Act of fen de rs al l al on g, th e

Su pr em e Co ur t in Reynol ds reject ed th at po si ti on an d he ld th at SORNA’s reg is tra ti on

req ui rem en ts di d no t app ly to pr e-Act of fen de rs un ti l th e Att or ne y Gene ral is su ed a

ru le sayin g s o. Se e Reyno ld s, 1 32 S. Ct. at 98 4.

Brewe r cu r ren tl y is req ui red to reg is te r un de r SORNA be cau se of a 19 97

co nv ic ti on fo r a se x of

fen se in Hawai i. At th e ti m e of SORNA’s en act m en t, Brewe r

was li vi ng in So ut h Afri ca. In Decem be r 20 07

, he m ov ed ba ck to th e Uni te d Stat es

an d se tt le d in Ark an sa s, bu t he di d no t reg is te r as a se x of fen de r. He was arre st ed in

Mar ch 20 09 an d p le ad ed gu il ty in Se pt em be r 20 09

.

Fo ll owi ng hi s rel eas e fro m pr is on , Brewe r m ov ed to va cat e hi s se nt en ce un de r

28 U.S.C. § 22 55

. As rel ev an t to t h i s ap pe al

, Brewe r arg ue d th at (1 ) th e Att or ne y

Gen eral la ck ed “ go od cau se ” an d th ereb y vi ol at ed th e Adm in is tra ti ve Pro ced ur es Act
(APA) wh en he pro m

ul ga te d a nd m ad e effe ct iv e th e In te rim Ru le wit ho ut all owi ng

fo r th e req ui red pu bl ic no ti ce-a nd -co m m en t pe rio d an d m in im

um 30 -d ay pu bl ic at io n

pe riod, an d (2 ) SO RN A vio lates th e no nd el eg at io n do ct rin e by pr ov id in g th e Att or ne y

Gen eral wit h th e au th or it y to de te rm in e whe n, an d if, SORNA wil l ap pl y to

pr e-SOR NA of fen de rs

. The di st ric t co ur t ad op te d th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep or t an d

de ni ed Brewe r’s m o t i o n t o va cat e on al l gr ou nd s. Brewe r th en m ov ed fo r

reco ns id erat io n an d as ke d th e di st ric t co ur t fo r a cert ifi ca t e of ap pe al ab il it y

. The

Su bs eq ue nt ly, th e Att or ne y Gen eral ha s is su ed a “ Fi na l ru le ,” whi ch m irr or s 1

th e la ng ua ge of th e In te rim R u l e

. 75 Fed

. Reg

. 81 ,84 9 (Dec. 29

, 20 10 );

se e al so Knu ts on , 68 0 F .3d at 1 02 3.

-3

-di st ric t co ur t de cl in ed to reco ns id er it s earl ie r ru li ng bu t cert ifi ed fo r ap pe al th e two

is su es st at ed ab ov e.

II . Dis cus si on

W e rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of a m ot io n un de r se ct io n 22 55

. Uni te d St at es v. Hern an de z, 43 6 F.3 d 85 1, 85 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). Any un de rlyin g

fact ua l fi nd in gs are re vi ewed for cle ar err or . Id.

On ap pe al Brewe r m ai nt ai ns th at th e Att or ne y G eneral ’s In te rim Ru le is in va li d

an d, th eref

or e, hi s co nv ic ti on is il le ga l. Brewe r pr es se s th e sa m e gr ou nd s fo r va cat in g

hi s co nv ic ti on th at he arg ue d in th e di st ric t cou rt: (1 ) th e “ In te rim Ru le vi ol at ed th e [APA] be cau se App el la nt was pr ejud ic ed by th e Att or ne y Gen eral ’s fai lu re to co m pl y
wit h th e req ui red pr oc ed ur e s f o r s ub st an ti ve ru le m ak in g an d fai lu re to pr ov id e

su ffi ci en t go od cau se fo r av oi di ng th os e pr oc ed ur es ”; an d (2 ) “ [c]on tra ry to Ci rcu it 2

pr e c e d e n t, [SORNA] vi ol at es no nd el eg at io n do ct rin e wit h reg ard s to st at e se x
of fen de rs who se pr io r co nv ic ti on pr e-d at es th e en act m en t or im pl em en ta ti on of th e

Act.” W e ad dr es s ea ch of h is arg um en ts in tu rn

.

The g o ve rn m en t as se rte d in th e di st ric t co ur t th at Brewe r ha d pr oc ed ur al ly 2

de fau lt ed th is arg um en t by fai li ng to rai se it on di rect ap pe al

. The m ag is tra te jud ge di d no t co ns id er th e is su e de fau lt ed an d reco m m en de d ad dr es s i n g th e m eri ts of

Brewe r’s arg um en t. The go ve rn m en t d i d n o t ob ject to th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s

reco m m en da ti on , di d no t c r o s s -ap pe al th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r ad op ti ng th e

m ag is tra t e ju d g e’s rep or t, an d do es no t m ai nt ai n on ap pe al th at Brewe r’s APA

arg um en t is de fau lt ed

. Thu s, we be li ev e th e go ve rn m en t ha s waiv ed p r o c e d u ral
de fau lt as an affi rm at iv e de fen se an d wil l no t fu rth er ad dr es s th e is su e. See Jo ne s v. Nor m an , 63 3 F .3d 66 1, 6 66 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

-4

-A. Goo d Cau se 3

As a st at e-l aw se x of

fen d e r , B rewer is gu il ty of fai li ng to reg is te r un de r

SORNA if he “ tra ve ls in in te rs ta te or fo rei gn co m m erce ” whi le kn owi ng ly fai li ng to

reg is te r or up da te hi s reg i s t r a t i o n

. 18 U.S.C. § 22 50 (a)( 2) (B). Brewe r su gg es ts

, ho wev er, th at SORNA was no t y et effe ct iv e as to hi m whe n he tra ve le d fro m Afri ca

to Ark an sa s in De c e mb e r 20 07 be cau se , he arg ue s, th e In te rim Ru le

, whi ch fo r th e

f i r s t ti m e m ad e SORNA ap pl ic ab le to se x of fen de rs co nv ic te d be fo re th e Act’s

en act m en t, is in va li d. Bec au se th e “ fin al ru le ” di d no t be co m e effe ct iv e un ti l Aug us t

20 08 , B rewer can no t be gu il ty u nd er th at ru le fo r h is Decem be r 20 07 m ov e. Thu s,

if t he Int eri m

Ru le is in va li d, t he n B rewer ’s con vi ct io n a ls o i s i nv al id

.

Brewe r as se rts th at t h e In te rim Ru le is in va li d be cau se th e Att or ne y Gen eral

fai le d to c o m

pl y wit h th e APA ru le m ak in g pr oc ed ur es wit ho ut go od cau se

. W e

rev ie w de no v o w h e t h e r an ag en cy ha s co m pl ie d wit h th e APA’s pr oc ed ur al

req ui rem en ts be cau se co m pl ia nc e “ is no t a m at te r th at Co ng res s ha s co m m it te d to th e

ag en cy ’s di sc ret io n.” Io wa Leag ue of Ci ti es v. EP A

, 71 1 F.3 d 84 4, 87 2 (8 th Ci r.

20 13 ). “ Age nc ie s m

us t co nd uc t ‘rul e m ak in g’ in acco rd wit h th e APA’s no ti ce and

c o mm e n t pr oc ed ur es .” Id

. at 85 5 (ci ti ng 5 U.S.C. § 55 3( b)

, (c))

. “ The APA’s

ru le m ak in g pr ov is io ns req ui re th ree st ep s to en act su bs ta nt iv e ru le s: no ti ce of th e

pr op os ed ru le

, a he ari ng or rece i p t a nd co ns id erat io n of pu bl ic co m m en ts

, an d th e

pu bl ic at io n of th e ne w ru le .” Uni te d St at es v. DeLeo n, 33 0 F.3 d 10 33

, 10 36 (8 th Ci r.

Brewe r arg ue s on ap pe al no t on ly th at th e Att or ne y Gen e r a l l a c k e d go od 3

c a u s e bu t al so th at th e is su e of go od cau se is fo recl os ed on ap pe al be cau se t h e
go ve rn m en t fai le d to ob

ject to th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep or t an d reco m m en da ti on or

cro ss -ap pe al th e d is tri ct co ur t’s ad op ti on of th at ru li ng

. As a re su lt , Brewer ass ert s th at he m us t pr ev ai l on th is is su e. Bu t th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ex pl ic it ly fin d th at th e Att or ne y Ge n e r a l h a d go od cau se

. Rat he r, th e di st ric t co ur t he ld th at ev en if th e Att or ne y Gen eral la ck ed go od cau se , th e erro r was ha rm le ss

. Thu s, we ad dr es s th is
is su e o n a pp eal

.

-5

-20 03 ). The th ird st ep , pu bl ic at io n of a ne w su bs ta nt iv e ru le

, m us t be co m

pl et ed “ no t

le ss th an 30 da y s b efo re [t he rul e’s] effect iv e d at e.” See 5 U.S.C. § 55 3( d)

.

An ag en cy m ay waiv e th e req ui rem en ts of a no ti ce an d co m m en t pe rio d an d th e

30 -d ay gr ace pe rio d be fo re pu bl ic at io n if th e ag en c y f i n d s “ go od cau se ” to do so

. See 5 U.S.C. § 55 3( b) (B), (d )(3 ). W e ha ve cau ti on ed

, ho wev er, th at co ur ts sh ou ld no t

co nf la te th e pr e-ad op ti on no ti ce-a nd -co m m en t req ui rem en ts , l is te d in § 55 3( b) an d
(c), wit h th e po st -ad op ti on pu bl ic at io n req ui rem en ts

, li st ed in § 55 3( d)

. Uni te d St at es

v. Gav ril ov ic , 55 1 F .2d 10 99 , 1 10 4 n.9 (8t h C ir. 1 97 7) . Becau se th es e are sep arat e

req ui rem en ts , th e ag en cy m us t h av e g oo d c au se to waiv e eac h.

W e no te th at th ere is a co nf li ct a mo n g t h e ci rcu it s reg ard in g th e ap pr op ria te

st an da rd of rev ie w f

or an ag en cy ’s a ss ert io n of go od cau se un de r § 55 3( b) (B). W e

ha ve in th e pa st de ferr ed to th e ag en cy ’s de te rm in at io n an d rev ie wed on ly “ whe th er

th e ag en cy ’s de te rm in at io n of go od cau se co m pl ie s wit h th e co ng res si on al in te nt ” in
§ 55 3( d)

. Gav ril ov ic

, 55 1 F.2 d at 11 05

. Thi s de fere nt ia l st an da rd ap pe ars si m il ar to

th e ap pr oa ch ta ke n by th e Fi fth a n d Elev en th Ci rcu it s, whi ch each us ed an
arb it rary-and -cap ric io us st an da rd fo un d in 5 U.S.C. § 70 6( 2) (A). See Uni te d St at es

v. Reynol ds (Reyno ld s II), 71 0 F.3 d 49 8, 50 6– 07 (3 d Ci r. 20 13 ) (co ll ect in g an d

rev ie win g co nf

li ct in g st an da rd s of rev ie w). The Fo ur th an d Si xt h Ci rcu it s, ho wev er,

ap pl ie d de no vo rev ie w an d cit ed § 70 6( 2) (D). Id

. at 50 7. W hi le we reco gn iz e th at

th is di vi si on is un he lp fu l, we ag ree wit h th e Thi rd Ci rcu it th at th e Att or ne y Gen eral ’s

as se rti on of g oo d c au se fai ls un de r an y of t he ab ov e st an da rd s.

In pr om ul ga ti ng th e In te rim Ru le

, th e Att or ne y Gen eral as se rte d go od cau se to

waiv e th e p ro ced ur al req ui rem en ts an d m ak e th e ru le effe ct iv e im m ed ia te ly:

The im m ed ia te effe ct iv en es s of th is ru le is ne ces sa ry to el im in at e an y
p o s s i b l e u n c e r t a i n t y a b o u t t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f t h e A c t ’ s

r eq ui rem en ts —an d rel at ed m ean s of en fo rcem en t, in cl ud in g cri m in al

-6

-li ab il it y un de r 18 U.S.C. 22 50 fo r se x offe nd ers who kn owi ng ly fai l to

reg is te r as req ui red

—t o se x of

fen de rs who se pr ed ic at e co n vi ct io ns
pr ed at e th e en act m en t of SORNA. Dela y in th e im pl em en ta ti on of th is

ru le wou ld im

pe de th e effe ct iv e reg is tra ti on of su ch se x of fe n de rs an d

wou ld im pa ir im m ed ia te effo rts to pr ot ect th e pu bl ic fro m se x of fen de rs who fai l to reg is te r th ro ug h pr os ecu ti on an d th e im po si ti on of cri m in al

sa nc ti on s. The r e s u l t in g pr act ic al da ng ers in cl ud e th e co m m is si on of
ad di ti on al se xu al as sa ul ts an d ch i l d se xu al ab us e or ex pl oi ta ti on

o f f e ns es by se x of

fen de rs th at co ul d ha ve be en pr ev en te d ha d lo cal

au th or it ie s an d th e co m

m un it y be en aware of th ei r pr es en ce, in ad di ti on
to gr eat er di ffi cu lt y in ap pr eh en di ng pe rp et rat or s who h a ve no t be en
reg is te red an d t rack ed as pro vi de d by SORNA. Thi s wo ul d t hwa rt t he
le gi sl at iv e ob

jecti ve of “ pr ot ect [in g] th e pu bl ic fro m se x of fen de rs an d
of fen de rs a ga in st ch il dr en ” by es ta bl is hi ng “ a co m pr eh en si ve na ti on al
syste m fo r th e reg is tra ti on of th os e of fen de rs ,” SORNA § 10 2, be cau se

a su bs ta nt ia l cl as s of se x of fen de rs co ul d e v a d e th e Act’s reg is tra ti on
req ui rem en ts an d en fo rcem e nt m ech an is m s du rin g th e pe nd en cy of a
pr op os ed rul e an d d el ay

in th e effe ct iv en es s o f a fi na l ru le

.

It wou ld acco rd in gl y be co nt rary to th e pu bl ic in te res t to ad op t th is ru le

w i th th e pr io r no ti ce an d co m m en t pe rio d no rm al ly req ui red un d e r 5 U

. S

. C

. 55 3( b) or wit h th e de la y ed effe ct iv e da te no rm al ly req ui re d

un de r 5 U.S.C . 55 3( d)

.

72 Fed

. Reg

. 88 94

, 88 96 –9 7. Thu s, th e Att or ne y Gen eral of fere d two rat io na le s fo r
waiv in g th e req ui rem en ts : (1 ) th e ne ed to el im in at e “ an y po ss ib le un cert ai nt y ” ab ou t

th e ap pl ic ab il it y

of S ORNA; an d (2 ) th e co nc ern th at fu rth er d el ay wou ld en da ng er

th e p ub li c. Id

.

The ap pe ll at e co ur ts are di vi de d ov er whe th er t h e Att or ne y Gen eral ’s
jus ti fic at io ns fo r ex te nd in g SORNA to al l pr e-Act of fen de rs wit ho ut ad he rin g to th e

req ui rem en ts of th e APA were su ffi ci en t. The pa rti es ’ arg um en t s in th is ap pe al

la rg el y tra ck th e di vi de in th e ci rcu it s. Two ci rcu it s, th e Fo ur th an d th e Elev en th

, ha ve
he ld th at t h e A t to rn ey Gen eral ha d go od cau se to bypas s th e no ti ce an d co m m en t

-7

-pr ov is io ns

. In Uni te d St at es v. Gou ld

, th e Fo ur th Ci rcu it no te d th at th ere was so m e 4

am bi gu it y ab ou t SORNA’s effe ct iv en es s a n d reas on ed th at th e In te rim Ru le was

ne ces sa ry to pr ov id e “ le ga l cert ai nt y ab ou t SORNA’s ‘retro act iv e’ ap pl ic at io n.” 56 8

F.3 d 45 9, 46 9– 70 (4 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Si m il arl y , in Uni te d St at es v. Dean

, th e Elev en th

Ci rcu it he ld th at th e In te rim Ru le se rv ed to pr om ot e pu bl ic sa fet y an d th at th e pu bl ic

sa fet y ex cep ti on ap pl ie d no t on ly to tru e “ em erg en cy si tu at io ns ” bu t al so to si tu at io ns

“ whe re de la y co u l d res ul t in se rio us ha rm .” 60 4 F.3 d 12 75

, 12 81 (4 th Ci r. 20 10 )
(q uo ti ng Ji fry v. F.A.A., 37 0 F.3 d 11 74

, 11 79 (D.C. Ci r. 20 04 )). The co ur t fo un d th at

de sp it e th e lo n g d e la y be twee n SORNA’s pa ss ag e an d th e pr om ul ga ti on of th e

In te rim Ru le

, th e Att or ne y Gen eral “ reas on ab ly de te rm in ed th at wait in g th irt y
ad di ti on al da y s for th e no ti ce an d co m m en t pe rio d to pa ss wou ld do real ha rm .” Id

.
at 12 82 –8 3.

In co nt ras t, fo ur ci rcu it s— th e Thi rd

, Fi fth

, Si xt h, an d Nin th —h av e fo un d th at

th e Att or ne y Gen eral ’s st at ed reas on s fo r fin di ng go od cau s e t o bypas s th e 30 -d ay
ad vanc e- publ ic at ion and no ti ce-a nd -co m m en t req ui rem en ts —al le vi at in g un cert ai nt y

a n d p r o te ct in g th e pu bl ic sa fet y —wer e in su ffi ci en t. See Reynol ds II, 71 0 F.3 d a t

50 9; Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n, 63 2 F

. 3 d 9 1 2

, 9 2 8 (5 th Ci r. 20 11 ); Uni te d St at es v.
Valv erd e, 62 8 F.3 d 11 59

, 11 68 (9 th Ci r. 20 10 ); Uni te d St at es v. Cai n, 58 3 F.3 d 40 8,

42 1– 24 (6 th Ci r. 20 09 ). W e ag ree wit h th es e ci rcu it s th a t t h e Att or ne y Gen eral

la ck ed go od cau se to waiv e th e p ro ced ur al req ui rem en ts

.

The Att or ne y Gen eral ’s fir st rat io na le

, th e ne e d t o el im in at e “ un cert ai nt y ”

ab ou t th e la w, si m

pl y refl ect s a ge ne ral iz ed co nc ern th at ex is ts an y ti m e an act

req ui res fu rth er s u b s t an ti ve ru le m ak in g. The re al way s wil l be so m e le ve l of

The Sev en th Ci rcu it al so ha s su gg es te d th at th e In te rim Ru le was effe ct iv e 4

im m ed ia te ly. See Uni te d St at es v. Dix on , 55 1 F.3 d 57 8 (7 th Ci r. 20 08 ), rev ’d on
ot he r gr ou nd s su b no m ., Carr v

. U n i t e d St at es , 56 0 U.S. 43 8 (2 01 0)

. The co ur t reject ed th e de f

en da nt ’s APA arg um en t as “ fri vo lo us ” bu t di d no t el ab or at e on it s

reas on in g. Id . at 5 83

.

-8

-un cert ai nt y ab ou t th e br ead th an d ti m in g of ap pl ic ab il it y un ti l t h e a ge nc y ha s

pr om ul ga te d a ru le

. See Rey no ld s II, 71 0 F.3d at 51 0 (“ [S]om e un cert ai nt y fo ll ows

th e en act m en t of an y la w th at pr ov id es th e ag en cy wit h ad m in is tra ti ve

res po ns ib il it y .”). Bu t in th is si tu at io n, “ [t]he de si re to el im in at e un cert ai nt y , by it se lf,

can no t co ns ti tu te go od cau se .” Id

. “ If go od cau se co ul d be sa ti sf ie d by an Age nc y ’s

as se rti on th at no rm al pr oc ed ur es were no t fo ll owe d be cau se of th e ne ed to pr ov id e

im m ed ia te g u id an ce an d in fo rm at io n[ ,]

. . . th en an ex cep ti on to th e no ti ce

req ui rem en t wou ld be crea te d th at wou ld swa ll ow th e ru le .” Valv erd e, 62 8 F.3 d at

11 66 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Co ng res s co ul d ha v e a l l e vi at ed th is

un cert ai nt y by pr ov id in g th at SORNA be im m ed ia te ly ap pl ic ab le to al l pr e-Act

of fen de rs

. In st ead

, Co ng res s gr an te d th e Att or ne y Gen eral di sc ret io n to de ci de ho w,

an d if, SORNA wou ld ap pl y to pr e-Act of fen de rs

. As su ch

, th is le ve l of un cert ai nt y

in he ren t in th e Co ng res si on al di rect iv e it se lf can no t const itu te an em er ge nc y or pu bl ic

ne cces it y

.

W e al so no te th at th e Att or ne y Gen eral di d no t act ua ll y fin d a co nc ret e

un cert ai nt y to rem ed y bu t rat he r was act in g to “ el im in at [e] an y po ss ib le un cert ai nt y .”

72 Fed

. Reg

. 88 94

, 8 8 9 6

– 9 7 (em ph as is ad de d)

. The re is a di ffer en ce be twee n
ad dr es si ng pr es en t le ga l un cert ai nt y an d ad dr es si ng th e po ss ib il it y of f u tu re le ga l

un cert ai nt y

. Alt ho ug h th e ris k of fu tu re ha rm m ay , un de r so m e ci rcu m st an ces , jus ti fy

a fi nd in g o f go od cau se , th at ris k m us t b e m or e su bs ta nt ia l t ha n a m ere p os si bi li ty.

Si m il arl y , th e Att or ne y

Gene ral ’s “ pu bl ic saf

et y rat io na le can no t co ns ti tu te a

reas on ed ba si s fo r go od cau se be cau se it is n o t h i n g more th an a rewo rd in g of th e

st at ut or y pu rp os e Co ng res s pr ov id ed in th e te xt of SORNA.” Reynol ds II, 71 0 F.3 d

at 51 2. The Att or ne y Gen eral po si te d th at de la y in im pl em en ti ng th e In te rim Ru le

“ wou ld im

pa ir im m ed ia te effo rts to pr ot ect th e pu bl ic fro m se x of fen de rs who fai l to

reg is te r.” 72 Fed

. Reg

. 88 94

, 88 96 –9 7. Bu t de la y in im pl em en ti ng a st at ut e al way s
wil l cau se ad di ti on al da ng er fro m th e sa m e ha rm th e st at ut e se ek s to av oi d. And th e

-9

-Att or ne y Gen eral ’s st at ed co nc ern fo r pu bl ic sa fet y fu rth er is un de rm in ed by hi s own

se ve n- m on th de la y in pr om ul ga ti ng th e In te rim Ru le

. Mo reo ve r, jus t as th e Att or ne y

Gen eral fai le d to sh ow an y su bs ta nt ia l ris k of un cert ai nty ab out SORNA’s ap pl ic at io n

to pr e-Act of

fen de rs , hi s co nc ern fo r pu bl ic sa fet y fai ls to “ p o i n t t o s o m et hi ng

sp eci fic th at il lu st rat es a pa rti cu la r ha rm th at wil l be cau se d by th e de la y req ui red fo r

no ti ce an d c om m en t.” Re y no ld s II , 71 0 F .3d at 5 13

.

W e th us co nc lu de th at

, ev e n u nd er an arb it rary an d cap ric io us st an da rd of

rev ie w, th ere is an in su ffi ci en t sh owi ng of go od cau se fo r bypas si ng th e APA’s

req ui rem en ts of n ot ic e an d c om m en t an d p re-e na ct m en t p ub li cat io n.

B. Preju di ce

In th e al te rn at iv e, th e go ve rn ment arg ue s th at an y vi ol at io n of th e APA’s

pr oc ed ur al req ui rem en ts was ha rm le ss to Brewe r. The AP A i n s t r u ct s co ur ts

rev ie win g ag en cy act io n to ta ke “ du e acco un t

. . . o f t he ru le of pr ejud ic ia l erro r.”

5 U.S.C. § 70 6; se e Sh in se ki v. San de rs , 55 6 U.S

. 39 6, 40 6– 07 (2 00 9) (ex pl ai ni ng

th at in te nt of APA’s re fere nc e to “ pr ejud ic ia l erro r” is to su m m ari ze h arm le ss -err or

ru le ap pl ie d by co ur ts ). Bec au se th e un de rl yin g m at te r in th is cas e in vo lv es a
cri m in al co nv ic ti on , t he go ve rn m en t b ears th e b ur de n o f sh owi ng th at th ere was no

pr ejud ic ia l erro r. See Reynol ds II, 71 0 F.3 d at 51 5– 16 ; se e al so San de rs , 55 6 U.S. at

41 0– 11 (no ti ng th at in cri m in al m at te rs , th e go ve rn m en t has th e b ur de n o f sh owi ng

ha rm le ss erro r be cau se of t he de fen da nt ’s li be rty int eres t at st ak e).

The m in im

um p u b l ic at io n pe rio d req ui red pr io r to a ru le be co m in g effe ct iv e
is 30 da y s

. 5 U.S.C. § 55 3( d)

. Si nc e th e In te rim Ru le was is su ed on Feb ru ary 28

, 20 07

, th e go ve rn m en t arg ue s th at if it ha d ob se rv ed pr op er pr oc ed ur e, th e In te rim

Ru le wou ld ha ve be co m e effe ct iv e 30 da y s la te r on Mar ch 30

, 20 07

. Bec au se Brewe r
di d no t vi ol at e th e act un ti l Decem be r 20 07

, th e go ve rn m en t co nt en ds

, it is irr el ev an t

-1 0-to Brewe r’s co nv ic ti on whe th er t h e ru le be cam e effe ct iv e im m ed ia te ly in Feb ru ary

or l a t e r i n Mar ch

. W e ag ree. Brewe r’s vi ol at io n of th e In te rim Ru le oc cu rred

ni ne m on th s aft er it wou ld ha ve go ne in to effe ct

. The ab se n c e o f th os e ex tra th irt y
da y s b et ween effe ct ua ti on an d v io la ti on di d n ot res ul t i n a ny preju di ce t o h im

.

Bu t th e Att or ne y Gen eral al so bypas se d th e req ui rem en t of a pe rio d fo r no ti ce

an d co m m en t. To su pp or t it s po si ti on th at th is erro r al so was ha rm le ss , th e

go ve rn m en t pr im ari ly rel ie s on th e Fi fth Ci rcu it ’s de ci si on in U ni te d St at es v.

Jo hn so n, 63 2 F.3 d 91 2. In Jo hn so n, th e Fi fth Ci rcu it fo un d th at an y pr oc ed ur al erro r

as to th e n ot ic e-an d- co m m en t pr ov is io n was no t pr ejud ic ia l be cau se th e Att or ne y

Gen eral ha d “ th or ou gh ly e n g a g e [ d ] th e is su es an d ch al le ng es in he ren t in th e

reg ul at io n” whe n en act in g th e In te rim Ru le

. 63 2 F.3 d at 93 1. Bec au se th e Att or ne y

G en eral ha d “ co ns id ered th e arg um en ts

. . . as se rte d an d res po nd ed t o t h o s e

arg um en ts du rin g th e in te rim ru le m ak in g,” al be it wit ho ut no ti ce an d co m m en t, th e

Fi fth Ci rc u i t h e l d th at “ th e erro r in fai li ng to so li ci t pu bl ic co m m en t be fo re is su in g

th e ru le was n ot pre

jud ic ia l.” Id . at 9 32

.

In it s b rie f on ap pe al , th e g ov ern m en t h ere a rg ue s:

Lik e Jo hn so n, Brewe r fai ls to sh ow he in vo lv ed hi m se lf in th e
po st -p ro m

ul ga ti on co m

m en t pe rio d. Neit he r do es Brewe r al le ge or sh ow th at he pa rti ci pa te d in th e Att or ne y Gen eral ’s s ub se qu en t

ru le m ak in g pr oc es s th at craf te d reg ul at io ns reg ard in g th e m or e de ta il ed

p r o v i si on s of SORNA, in whi ch th e Att or ne y Gen eral al so co ns id ere d
th e ret ro act iv it y of SORNA, free of APA erro r. Fi na ll y , be cau se Brewe r

m ak es no sh owi ng th at th e ou tc om e of th e pr oc es s wou ld ha ve di ffer ed
ha d no ti ce an d co m

m en t be en pr op er, i t i s c l e a r th at th e Att or ne y Gen eral ’s al le ge d APA vi ol at io ns wou ld be ha rm le ss erro r as ap pl ie d to hi m

.

-1 1-W e d is ag ree wit h th e go ve rn m en t. W e fir st no te th at th e Att or ne y Gen eral ’s

fai lu re to fo ll ow th e APA’s pr e-p ro m ul ga ti on req ui rem en ts was a “ co m pl et e fai lu re,”

co m pa red to a “ te ch ni cal fai lu re.” See Reynol ds II, 71 0 F.3 d at 51 6– 17

. It is no t th at

th e m et ho d of al lo win g no ti ce an d co m m en t was fla wed ; rat he r, th ere was no m et ho d

at al l. Bec au se th ere was no pe rio d du rin g whi ch Brewe r, or an y on e el se , co ul d ha ve

of fere d co m m en ts be fo re th e In te rim Ru le was pr om ul ga te d, he do es no t ne ed to sh ow

th at an y hypo th et ic al co m m en ts wou ld ha ve ch a n g e d th e rat io na le un de rlyin g th at

ru le . Id. at 51 6 (c it in g S he ll Oil Co . v. EPA, 95 0 F .2d 74 1, 7 52 (D.C. Cir . 19 91 )).

Seco nd

, th e go ve rn m en t’s arg um en t im pr op erl y sh ift s to Brewe r th e bu rd en to

sh ow th at th e ou tc om e of th e pr oc es s wou ld ha ve be en di f f e r e n t w i th th e pr op er

pr oc ed ur es

. Mo reo ve r, it is irr el ev an t th at Brewe r di d no t pa rti ci pa te i n th e

po st -p ro m

ul ga ti on co m

m en t pe rio d. As we earl ie r no te d, hi s on l y m ov em en t in

in te rs ta te or fo rei gn co m

m erce oc cu rred aft er th e In te rim Ru le ha d be en pr om ul ga te d

bu t be fo r e t h e F in al Ru le was pu bl is he d. Thu s, Brewe r co ul d no t be gu il ty of

vi ol at in g th e fin al ru le

, whi ch is th e on ly ru le th at m ay h a v e b e e n affe ct ed by th e

po st -p ro m

ul ga ti on co m

m en ts

. The o nl y no ti ce-a nd -co m m en t peri od rel ev an t to hi s

co nv ic ti on is th e on e th at th e Att or ne y Gen eral fai le d to pr ov id e be fo re pr om ul ga ti on

of th e In te rim Ru le

.

Nor can we acce pt th e go ve rn m en t’s as su m pt io n th at th e en act ed ru le cert ai nl y

wou ld ha ve be en th e s a me. Co nt rary t o th e go ve rn m en t’s co nt en ti on , t he Att or ne y

Gen eral di d no t face a si m pl e “ y es or no ” de ci si on

. C om pa re Jo hn so n, 63 2 F.3 d at

93 2, wit h Reynol ds II, 71 0 F.3 d at 52 0– 21

. In fact

, th e Att or ne y Gen eral ha d a ran ge

of op ti on s: fro m ap pl y in g SORNA to al l pr e-Act of fen de rs to ap pl y in g SORNA to no

pr e-Act of

fen de rs

. The Att or ne y Gen eral al so ha d th e op po rtu ni ty t o d i st in gu is h

be twee n “ ‘offen de rs who ha ve fu ll y le ft th e syste m an d m erg ed i n t o t h e ge ne ral

po pu la ti on ’” an d th os e “ ‘w ho rem ai n in th e syste m as pr is on ers , su pe rv is ees , or

reg is tra nt s, or reen te r th e syste m th ro ug h su bs eq ue nt co nv ic ti on s.’” Reynol ds II, 71 0

-1 2-F.3 d at 52 1 (q uo ti ng th e “ SMAR T” Gui de li ne s, 73 Fed

. Reg

. 38 ,03 0, 38 ,03 5 (J ul y 2,

20 08 ), whi ch no te th e Att or ne y Gen eral ’s ab il it y to di st in gu is h be twee n pr io r

of fen de rs on th e ba si s of st at us ). Giv en th is ran ge of ch oi ces , we do no t be li ev e th at

th e Att or ne y Gen eral ’s fin al ch oi ce was in ev it ab le or th at th e o u t c o me c ert ai nl y

wou ld ha ve be en th e sa m e h ad th ere b een a pe rio d fo r no ti ce an d c om m en t.

Brewe r arg ue s that “ even if co nf ro nt ed wit h jus t a bi na ry qu es ti on , th e Att or ne y

Gen eral di d no t gi ve bo th op ti on s ful l con si de rat io n.” W e ag ree. As Brewer no te s,

at th e ti m e th e In te rim Ru le was pr om ul ga te d, th e Att or ne y Gen eral was pe rs is ti ng in

hi s v ie w t ha t no ru le m ak in g was ne ed ed fo r SORNA to ap pl y to pre -Act off

en de rs

. See Uni te d St at es v. May, 53 5 F.3 d 91 2, 91 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (“ The Att or ne y Gen eral

di d no t b e l i e ve a ru le was ev en ne ed ed to co nf irm SORNA’s ap pl ic ab il it y to

de fen da nt s [in cl ud i n g p re-Ac t of fen de rs ]. Rat he r, th e Att or ne y Gen eral on ly

pr om ul ga te d th e ru le as a pr ecau ti on ary m eas ur e to ‘ fo re cl os e [ ] su ch cl ai m s [o f pr eAct of fen de rs ] by m ak in g it in di sp ut ab ly cl ea r th at SORN A a p pl ie s to al l se x
of fen de rs (as th e Act d e f

i n es th at te rm ) reg ard le ss of whe n th ey were co nv ic te d.’”
(fi rs t al te rat i o n i n o r ig in al ) (q uo ti ng 72 Fed

. Reg

. at 88 96 )), ab ro ga te d in pa rt by
Reynol ds

, 13 2 S. Ct

. 97 5. The Att or ne y Gen eral ’s at te m pt to fo recl os e th e po ss ib le

cl ai m s of pr e-Act of

fen de rs se em s in co m

pa ti bl e wit h h is du ty seri ou sl y to co ns id er
whe th er SORNA ap pl ie s to th os e of fen de rs , an d if so , whi ch on es

. Su ch an ap pr oa ch

cert ai nl y do es no t su gg es t th e so rt of “ fle xi bl e an d op en -m in de d at ti tu de to ward s it s

own ru le s, ” t ha t is ge ne ral ly req ui red fo r th e no ti ce-a nd -co m m en t pe rio d.

See Pro m et he us R a d io Pro ject v. FCC, 65 2 F.3 d 43 1, 44 9 (3 d Ci r. 20 11 ) (in te rn al

q u ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Bas ed on th e reco rd be fo re us , we can no t s a y t h e

im m ed ia te effe ct iv en es s o f th e In te rim Ru le was h arm le ss as t o B rewer

.

In su m , th e Att o r n e y G e ne ral la ck ed go od cau se to waiv e th e pr oc ed ur al

re q ui rem en ts of no ti ce an d co m m en t whe n pr om

ul ga ti ng th e In te rim Ru le , a nd th is

-1 3-pr oc ed ur al erro r pr ejud ic ed Brewe r. As a res ul t, SORNA di d no t ap pl y to Brewe r in

20 07 , so hi s co nv ic ti on for fai li ng to reg is te r is in va li d.

C. Nonde le ga tio n Doc tri ne

Bec au se we co nc lu de th at th e Att or ne y Gene ral lac ke d g oo d c au se to bypas s

th e APA’s pr oc ed ur al req ui rem en ts

, we ne ed no t ad dr es s Brewe r’s se co nd arg um en t

th at SORNA v i ol at es th e no nd el eg at io n do ct rin e. W e no te

, ho wev er, th at Brewe r
ack no wled ge s th at hi s a rg um en t is co nt rary to th is ci rcu it ’s pr eced en t. See Uni te d

St at es v. Kue hl

, 70 6 F.3 d 91 7 (8 th Ci r

. 2 0 1 3 ) (co nc lu di ng th at SORNA di d no t

vi ol at e th e n on de le ga ti on do ct rin e).

II I. Co ncl us io n

Fo r th e reas on s di sc us se d ab ov e, we rev ers e th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of

B r ewer’s m ot io n un de r § 22 55 an d rem an d. The di st ric t co ur t is or de red t o v a c a t e

Brewe r’s co nv ic ti on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 4-