I don't see Peruta going sau sponte, the CA9 panel wrote the opinion for the SCOTUS to review.
I will place a wager, the CA9 would love to clear their calendar of all the 2A cases with more guidance from the Supreme Court.
Peruta v. County of San Diego (CCW Case)
- Thread starter krucam
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I don't see Peruta going sau sponte, the CA9 panel wrote the opinion for the SCOTUS to review.
I will place a wager, the CA9 would love to clear their calendar of all the 2A cases with more guidance from the Supreme Court.
Kharn
Ultimate Member
Oral arguments would be hilarious if Gore just stood there and shrugged whenever the judges asked him a question.
danb
dont be a dumbass
Hard to say. There are probably enough anti gun judges on the 9th who are willing to roll the dice and hope for a good panel.
It'll be interesting to see the opposition to en banc. Peruta did not object to the court exercising discretion and allowing Harris to intervene. I suspect Clement wants en banc and Gura doesn't. Probably more than a 50-50 chance of en banc.
Last edited:
krucam
Ultimate Member
Keep in mind that the sua sponte call for en banc is only for AG Harris to intevene as a party in Peruta. It is NOT a call for en banc for rehearing of the case.
Even if intervenor status were granted, a separate en banc request (and/or a 2nd sua sponte request) would be necessary for rehearing Peruta at CA9.
Even if intervenor status were granted, a separate en banc request (and/or a 2nd sua sponte request) would be necessary for rehearing Peruta at CA9.
danb
dont be a dumbass
No, I think the sua sponte call is for rehearing en banc, not intervention http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/12/03/10-5697112-03-2014B.pdf
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
The order says that a judge asked for a vote sua sponte. No petition needed in that case.
What is the maxumum length of time, the other judges have to respond for the sau sponte call?
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
That appears to be incorrect. They requested a response to the State's petition, but a separate order says that a JUDGE has requested a vote whether to rehear *the case* sua sponte. I read this language as applicable to the case on the merits.
rob
DINO Extraordinaire
Ok, maybe I am missing something? Parties to file what?
San Diego (loser) files, if anything: We're done, we don't want a rehearing.
Peruta (winner) files: We won, we don't want a rehearing.
It sounds like everyone is happy, except the court (and Harris, of course).
Rob.
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
The order states that the parties have 21 days to file briefs on whether the case should be reheard en banc. Under the 9th circuit general order, once the briefs are in, the active judges have 21 days to exchange memos among themselves. The en banc coordinator then calls for a vote and the judges on the court have 14 days to cast a vote. A failure to vote is deemed a "no" vote. So it is 21 + 21 + 14 which equals 56. Roughly two months for a decision on whether to grant rehearing en banc (not two weeks)
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
This is actually quite important. Gore says whatever. Peruta says, sure, there is a conflict on the circuits on the question and sure the issue is important, but let the SCt decide the issue. Hard argument to make where there is no party present that will take the case to the SCT (Gore won't and Harris' motion to intervene was denied). So, what will they say? It will be interesting
danb
dont be a dumbass
I guess my point is that for a judge to call for en banc before the full court has decided to grant Harris' motion to intervene, leaves the (unlikely) possibility that the court grants en banc, but denies Harris' motion to intervene. What then? Does the court force Gore to argue his case?
danb
dont be a dumbass
By the way, seems to me that if Gore says, "we're done," and Peruta says "We're done," but the court re-hears the case and lets Harris intervene anyway, that's a recipe that almost guarantees that the SCT will hear the case, maybe on unusual procedure alone. I keep thinking that Clement's weak opposition is a trap.
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
If they decide to go en banc on the sua sponte call, my guess is that they will likewise grant Harris' petition to intervene and rehear the case. The court will not require Gore to argue. It lacks that power. And there is no guarantee or even better odds that the SCT will review an en banc decision if the en banc court follows Kalchalsky, Drake and Woollard. Not a circuit conflict. I agree that the very best way for this to get to the SCT is for the 9th to affirm the panel or deny rehearing, but let Harris in to argue the case and take it to the SCT.
fightinbluhen51
"Quack Pot Call Honker"
- Oct 31, 2008
- 8,974
Maybe the judges (hell, maybe one of the panel itself) said "enough of this garbage...let's kick it to SCOTUS."
Seems to me though, 56 days, will put us into February. That means, cert petition deadline will be sometime around end of March? Cali will almost be guaranteed to pull the "dog ate my homework" and request an extension of petition before Kennedy who will grant it, so, end of April. 30 days for response? 15 for reply? So, Mid June?
IF, big if, this goes to SCOTUS, we'd be a fall argument date. No way they will release a decision prior to 30 June 2016, which would be right at the height of the presidential election season. Primaries will be done, and the general will be on. We'll be less than a month and a half away from party conventions.
Buckle up those seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
If (again big If) cert was granted that late, the case should be heard early next term
I believe Peruta's counsel wants Harris in but rehearing denied. No one who wins with a 3 judge panel is going to want en banc
fightinbluhen51
"Quack Pot Call Honker"
- Oct 31, 2008
- 8,974
Right...which means arguments early fall of 2015. No way the court doesn't hold that as one of the "big" cases for which it usually releases opinions during the final days of the term. Meaning a decision sometime in June of 2016.
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
I completely agree.
