Case Citator › United States v. Gould

United States v. Gould

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Declined by some courts
Court
Fourth Circuit
Citation
568 F.3d 459
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
28 of 28
Citing cases (total)
28
Treatment dates
2009
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. United States v. Gould has one confirmed adverse treatment listed below; all 28 flagged citations have been read. The Sixth Circuit rejected its reasoning that the Attorney General had good cause to dispense with the Administrative Procedure Act's rulemaking requirements when applying SORNA to people convicted before its enactment.
More on how this was screened

Later Fourth Circuit opinions continued to apply Gould.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

28 later cases cite United States v. Gould; 28 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on United States v. Gould?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Declined to follow

  • The Sixth Circuit rejected Gould's good-cause analysis and held the Attorney General's interim SORNA rule ineffective against a person convicted before SORNA.

    United States v. Cain · Sixth Circuit · filed

    We recognize that the only other circuit to consider whether the Attorney General’s regulation complies with the APA rejected the defendant’s APA challenge. See United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459, 469-70 (4th Cir.2009). But that court’s brief analysis offered only three weak reasons for its holding. The Fourth Circuit claimed a need for legal certainty about the application of SOR-NA, claimed that delay “could reasonably be found to put the public safety at greater risk,” and (incorrectly) claimed that the Attorney General eventually accepted comments on the regulation. Id. at 470. As already explained, these reasons, whether individually or in combination, do not show good cause to disregard the APA.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads United States v. Gould and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace