Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco

[rlc2]

thanks Esqappellate

A GVR is a decision of the SCT that Grants certiorari (thereby taking jurisdiction), Vacates the decision below, thereby depriving that decision of any value as precedent and Remands the case to the lower court for further action, usually citing a the court's decision in another case. This GVR is usually used where the Court has issued a decision this term and there is an argument that the lower court decision being GVRed is inconsistent. Basically, it is the Court's way of telling the lower court to take another look. "Per Curiam" means simply "by the court" -- it is not a signed opinion or authored by any particular justice. Unusually unanimous and is often used with summary reversal. Summary reversal in a per curiam opinion is a real slap, essentially telling the lower court that it got the case so hopelessly wrong as to be unworthy of the Court's time to grant plenary review and consider the merits more fully.

Thanks- that was my takeaway from Wikipedia but in the case of Jackson, a GVR doesnt quite fit the explanation given there, because there is nothing NEW that invalidates the 9ths decision, yet anyway.

So a per curiam is the way to say, you got it wrong, and there is nothing more to say about it. I would really like to see that too, but can imagine why you consider it a low percentage chance, given the unresolved issues on scrutiny, how to measure the vague "public safety", etc.

My other question still stands, why is Jackson so narrow or not important enough to NOT take up for cert, in plenary review,
and if they dont, will SCT explain that? Do dissenters from the majority decision NOT to grant cert get to say anything about it?

 

[press1280]

Thanks- that was my takeaway from Wikipedia but in the case of Jackson, a GVR doesnt quite fit the explanation given there, because there is nothing NEW that invalidates the 9ths decision, yet anyway.

So a per curiam is the way to say, you got it wrong, and there is nothing more to say about it. I would really like to see that too, but can imagine why you consider it a low percentage chance, given the unresolved issues on scrutiny, how to measure the vague "public safety", etc.

My other question still stands, why is Jackson so narrow or not important enough to NOT take up for cert, in plenary review,
and if they dont, will SCT explain that? Do dissenters from the majority decision NOT to grant cert get to say anything about it?

They may feel this law is basically unenforceable so some other 2A case would be better. If cert is denied, they can write a dissent, although they haven't done so on any other case so far.

 

[esqappellate]

Thanks- that was my takeaway from Wikipedia but in the case of Jackson, a GVR doesnt quite fit the explanation given there, because there is nothing NEW that invalidates the 9ths decision, yet anyway.

So a per curiam is the way to say, you got it wrong, and there is nothing more to say about it. I would really like to see that too, but can imagine why you consider it a low percentage chance, given the unresolved issues on scrutiny, how to measure the vague "public safety", etc.

My other question still stands, why is Jackson so narrow or not important enough to NOT take up for cert, in plenary review,
and if they dont, will SCT explain that? Do dissenters from the majority decision NOT to grant cert get to say anything about it?

The Court likes to take cases that have broad implications well beyond the facts presented. Jackson is just a nutty municipal ordinance and, as the briefing makes clear, quite limited to San Francisco. I don't see them granting plenary review for that reason alone but I *do* think it possible that summary reversal could be issued. Clement also thinks so, hence that extended discussion in his petition and reply asking for same. Summary reversal is the Court enforcing its decisions and that is a different inquiry than the usual cert grant. The Court, as an institution, generally takes a dim view of lower courts flouting its decisions with distinctions that are meaningless. The question is whether the Court's conservatives can get the rest of the Court to go along. I think it is quite possible, precisely because Heller has already plowed this ground. As whether the court will explain a denial of cert., almost always NO. On occasion, you will see a dissent from a denial by one or two justices. Remember, it only takes 4 to grant cert. but it takes at least 5 to issue a summary reversal.

 

[Kharn]

There was a dissent from denial of cert in October with three Justices.
Authored by Scalia, joined by Thomas and Ginsburg. Of all possible combinations, I think that's the least expected one.

 

[Dogabutila]

That's not related to any real idealogical factor though.

 

[press1280]

There was a dissent from denial of cert in October with three Justices.
Authored by Scalia, joined by Thomas and Ginsburg. Of all possible combinations, I think that's the least expected one.

An interesting quote from that,"Nonetheless, the Courts of Appeals have uniformly taken our continuing silence to suggest that the Constitution does permit otherwise unreasonable sentences supported by judicial fact finding, so long as they are within the statutory range."

They obviously admit by denying cert that they are indeed sending a message to the Appeals Courts to keep doing what they're doing.

 

[Window_Seat]

The Court likes to take cases that have broad implications well beyond the facts presented. Jackson is just a nutty municipal ordinance and, as the briefing makes clear, quite limited to San Francisco. I don't see them granting plenary review for that reason alone but I *do* think it possible that summary reversal could be issued. Clement also thinks so, hence that extended discussion in his petition and reply asking for same. Summary reversal is the Court enforcing its decisions and that is a different inquiry than the usual cert grant. The Court, as an institution, generally takes a dim view of lower courts flouting its decisions with distinctions that are meaningless. The question is whether the Court's conservatives can get the rest of the Court to go along. I think it is quite possible, precisely because Heller has already plowed this ground. As whether the court will explain a denial of cert., almost always NO. On occasion, you will see a dissent from a denial by one or two justices. Remember, it only takes 4 to grant cert. but it takes at least 5 to issue a summary reversal.

Ok, so D?... Can they grant summary reversal if addressing a petition for a writ of certiorari?

Erik.

 

[esqappellate]

Ok, so D?... Can they grant summary reversal if addressing a petition for a writ of certiorari?

Erik.

Sure. That's is how it is done. They grant cert and summarily reverse without further briefing and argument (that is what "summarily" means).

 

[wolfwood]

So we find out on Monday whether this got accepted?

 

[Kharn]

So we find out on Monday whether this got accepted?

Welllll, not exactly.
Cases granted cert are usually announced the same day, but some cases do go until Monday's orders. Except, for this term the Court has shown a trend of relisting every accepted case at least once, probably due to the embarrassing number of DAIG (Dismissed As Improvidently Granted) cases in the last 18 months and making sure the clerks check every nook and cranny of the case before it is granted.

So really, we want a relist.

 

[Dogabutila]

DAIG is like "oops just kidding we didn't really want to hear this?" I didn't even know this was possible to do.

 

[esqappellate]

Welllll, not exactly.
Cases granted cert are usually announced the same day, but some cases do go until Monday's orders. Except, for this term the Court has shown a trend of relisting every accepted case at least once, probably due to the embarrassing number of DAIG (Dismissed As Improvidently Granted) cases in the last 18 months and making sure the clerks check every nook and cranny of the case before it is granted.

So really, we want a relist.

AGreed. Nice call.

 

[esqappellate]

DAIG is like "oops just kidding we didn't really want to hear this?" I didn't even know this was possible to do.

It happens. Not often, but it does happen. In the trade, its called a "DIG"

 

[Dogabutila]

Didn't they relist one of the gun cases? I forget which, but perhaps that means we're close.

 

[Kharn]

Didn't they relist one of the gun cases? I forget which, but perhaps that means we're close.

Drake was relisted twice.

 

[Brooklyn]

An interesting quote from that,"Nonetheless, the Courts of Appeals have uniformly taken our continuing silence to suggest that the Constitution does permit otherwise unreasonable sentences supported by judicial fact finding, so long as they are within the statutory range."

They obviously admit by denying cert that they are indeed sending a message to the Appeals Courts to keep doing what they're doing.

No this is a rebuke. And frankly a fairly harsh one IMHO


The entire dissent is. Esp the part about putting an end to ignoring the 6 th A.


The court appears to be tiring of court disobedience... at least these 3.. but it implies that the other 4 are fans of the free for all. It much more fashionable to deal with gay marriage I guess.

 

[Wolverine]

Initially scheduled for conference today, Jackson has been rescheduled for some unknown time in the future.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/jackson-v-city-and-county-of-san-francisco/

 

[esqappellate]

Initially scheduled for conference today, Jackson has been rescheduled for some unknown time in the future.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/jackson-v-city-and-county-of-san-francisco/

this is a good thing!

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

Esquappelate, I understand that this case doesn't have broad implication to the court in exactly the way WE would consider it to have broad implications.

But shouldn't the fact that it so explicitly controverts the precise holding in Heller (vis a vi trigger locks) make a mockery of the courts holding? Doesn't that fact alone warrant a response, even if only to protect the sovereignty of a SCOTUS decision and discourage the insolent disregard by an inferior court?

 

[danb]

Initially scheduled for conference today, Jackson has been rescheduled for some unknown time in the future.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/jackson-v-city-and-county-of-san-francisco/

Not getting hopes up.
Not getting hopes up..
Not getting hopes up...

Too late hopes up. Relist is a good sign.