Case Citator › United States v. May

United States v. May

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

Abrogated
Court
Eighth Circuit
Citation
535 F.3d 912
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
30 of 30
Citing cases (total)
30
Treatment dates
2012
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. United States v. May was abrogated on when SORNA began to apply to offenders convicted before its enactment. In Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court held that those offenders were not subject to SORNA's registration requirements until the Attorney General specified that they were.
More on how this was screened

May's separate constitutional holdings are not displaced by that ruling. The 1 confirmed treatment is listed below. All 30 flagged citations have been read.

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.

30 later cases cite United States v. May; 30 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. May?

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

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court rejected May's holding that SORNA applied to previously convicted offenders before the Attorney General specified its applicability to them.

    Reynolds v. United States · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Five Circuits have held that they apply from the date of the Act’s enactment, and prior to any such specification, at least with respect to pre-Act offenders who had already registered under state law. ... United States v. May, 535 F. 3d 912, 918-919 (CA8 2008). ... The question before us is whether the Act requires pre-Act offenders to register before the Attorney General validly specifies that the Act’s registration provisions apply to them. We believe that it does not.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads United States v. May 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