United States v. Dean
604 F.3d 1275 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An agency has "good cause" to bypass the Administrative Procedure Act's notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements when it reasonably determines that delay would cause real harm to the public interest. A significant threat to public safety, such as the risk of sex offenders remaining untracked, can constitute such good cause.
Facts:
- On January 18, 1994, Christopher Dean was convicted of criminal sexual conduct in Minnesota, which required him to register as a sex offender.
- In 2003, Dean relocated to Montana and registered as a sex offender there.
- In 2005, Dean moved to Georgia, registered as a sex offender, and provided notice to Montana.
- On July 27, 2006, Congress enacted the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA).
- On February 28, 2007, the Attorney General issued an interim rule making SORNA's requirements immediately applicable to all offenders convicted before its enactment.
- Between July and August 2007, Dean traveled to Alabama and failed to register as a sex offender there.
- Dean was subsequently arrested in Alabama for this failure to register.
Procedural Posture:
- On March 14, 2008, a federal grand jury indicted Christopher Dean in federal district court for one count of violating SORNA, 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a).
- Dean filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the Attorney General's rule making SORNA retroactive was invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act and that SORNA was unconstitutional.
- The district court, as the court of first instance, denied Dean's motion to dismiss.
- Dean entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion.
- After being sentenced to time served, Dean filed a timely appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Attorney General's invocation of public safety concerns to make the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) immediately retroactive constitute 'good cause' to bypass the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Farris, Senior Circuit Judge
Yes. The Attorney General's invocation of public safety concerns constitutes good cause to bypass the APA's notice-and-comment requirements. The court reasoned that the 'good cause' exception, while narrow, is an 'important safety valve to be used where delay would do real harm.' The Attorney General's justification—that immediate retroactivity was necessary to prevent additional sexual assaults, protect the public, and aid in the apprehension of unregistered offenders—was a valid public interest concern. Delaying the rule for a notice-and-comment period would have thwarted SORNA's legislative objective. The court held that public safety is improved by a federal law that allows the federal government, including the U.S. Marshals Service, to pursue offenders, thus adding a powerful enforcement mechanism beyond existing state laws.
Concurring - Wilson, Circuit Judge
No. The Attorney General failed to show good cause to avoid the notice-and-comment requirements. The concurring opinion argues there was no true emergency or threat of real harm because substantial state and federal laws, including Megan's Law, already existed to prosecute sex offenders who failed to register. The Attorney General's own seven-month delay in issuing the rule and Congress's decision to give states three years to comply with SORNA undercut any claim of urgency. However, the failure to follow procedure was harmless error. Since five months elapsed between the rule's promulgation and Dean's failure to register, the lack of a 30-day notice period did not prejudice him. Furthermore, Dean failed to demonstrate that his participation in a comment period could have credibly led to a different outcome for the rule.
Analysis:
This decision deepens a circuit split regarding the scope of the APA's 'good cause' exception, aligning the Eleventh Circuit with the Fourth Circuit's deferential approach to agency claims of public safety. By finding that the risk of 'real harm'—not necessarily a full-blown 'emergency'—is sufficient, the ruling grants agencies considerable leeway to bypass public rulemaking procedures in matters of public safety. This precedent could empower agencies in other regulatory areas to use expedited rulemaking, potentially at the expense of public participation and administrative transparency. The concurrence's reliance on 'harmless error' provides an alternative analytical path but highlights the core tension between procedural regularity and substantive outcomes.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Dean