"In her majority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor, argued that if the congressional delegation at issue in this case qualifies as unconstitutional, "then most of Government is unconstitutional—dependent as Congress is on the need to give discretion to executive officials to implement its programs."
"
Somewhat correct.
Congress does need to give discretion to the executive officials to implements its programs.
However, it does not give that discretion on the law itself.
"Congress left it up to the attorney general to decide how to deal with the estimated 500,000 individuals whose sex crime convictions predate SORNA's passage."
Which means congress didn't write that into the law, and shirked its responsibility, in my view.
Why would the Attorney General be given the authority to anything here?
Either:
(a) Nothing happens to those individuals whose crimes pre-date SORNA, because it wan't the law.
(b) A law is written to answer this question
(b) runs the risk of Double Jeopardy.
This ruling is ripe for misinterpretation and corruption, as it does hand the power to the Attorney General to decide, without real guidelines on how to proceed.