Lane Decision. Held: No standing

[ryan_j]

Nothing in today's orders either.

At this point I'm really curious to know what's going on. I would love to be a fly on the wall in that room.

 

[esqappellate]

Nothing in today's orders either.

At this point I'm really curious to know what's going on. I would love to be a fly on the wall in that room.

In his reply, Gura asked the Court to at least hold the petition in Lane until the court decides whether to accept the petition in NRA (18-20 year old purchasing of handguns) where the 5th Circuit sustained purchaser standing. I think that maybe the court is holding the Lane petition, as Gura requested.

 

[ryan_j]

In his reply, Gura asked the Court to at least hold the petition in Lane until the court decides whether to accept the petition in NRA (18-20 year old purchasing of handguns) where the 5th Circuit sustained purchaser standing. I think that maybe the court is holding the Lane petition, as Gura requested.

Ah that explains it then. Thanks as always.

 

[jrosenberger]

In his reply, Gura asked the Court to at least hold the petition in Lane until the court decides whether to accept the petition in NRA (18-20 year old purchasing of handguns) where the 5th Circuit sustained purchaser standing. I think that maybe the court is holding the Lane petition, as Gura requested.

Winner winner chicken dinner. Lane relisted for the Feb 21 conference along with NRA v BATFE and NRA v McCraw.

 

[press1280]

Winner winner chicken dinner. Lane relisted for the Feb 21 conference along with NRA v BATFE and NRA v McCraw.

I had a feeling SCOTUS was up to something. This case though is about standing at this point, correct?

 

[jrosenberger]

I had a feeling SCOTUS was up to something. This case though is about standing at this point, correct?

Correct. The lack of standing held here in Lane is in direct conflict with the standing holding in the NRA cases (and Dearth). Gura's reply brief in Lane sums it up pretty well. (posted earlier in this thread.)

 

[ryan_j]

Correct. The lack of standing held here in Lane is in direct conflict with the standing holding in the NRA cases (and Dearth). Gura's reply brief in Lane sums it up pretty well. (posted earlier in this thread.)

So what does this mean in non-attorney speak for the chances of a grant of certiorari?

 

[press1280]

So what does this mean in non-attorney speak for the chances of a grant of certiorari?

You'd have to think the chances just got a little better. But who knows they may just boot on all 3.

 

[esqappellate]

So what does this mean in non-attorney speak for the chances of a grant of certiorari?

It means that the court understands that the cases are related, and they certainly are on the standing point. A whole range of options are available. If they take cert in the NRA case, I expect them to continue to hold Lane and then do a CVR in Lane if standing is sustained in NRA. Standing is jurisdictional and so it is likely that they would consider it in the NRA. If they deny cert in NRA, they could still take Lane on standing, but the odds are harder. There is a conflict in Lane, but as we know, that hardly guarantees cert. I am not particularly optimistic on the merits in the NRA cases. Still, the NRA case drew a powerful dissent from the denial of en banc and counsel are players on this level.

 

[Kharn]

Won't the court be more lenient on standing and realize the difficulties in challenging an age-based restriction when every individual plaintiff grows out of the range before they can get through all the appeals?

How would they handle a case where the discrimination were only six or twelve months?

 

[ryan_j]

It means that the court understands that the cases are related, and they certainly are on the standing point. A whole range of options are available. If they take cert in the NRA case, I expect them to continue to hold Lane and then do a CVR in Lane if standing is sustained in NRA. Standing is jurisdictional and so it is likely that they would consider it in the NRA. If they deny cert in NRA, they could still take Lane on standing, but the odds are harder. There is a conflict in Lane, but as we know, that hardly guarantees cert. I am not particularly optimistic on the merits in the NRA cases. Still, the NRA case drew a powerful dissent from the denial of en banc and counsel are players on this level.

Thanks as always.

 

[esqappellate]

Won't the court be more lenient on standing and realize the difficulties in challenging an age-based restriction when every individual plaintiff grows out of the range before they can get through all the appeals?

How would they handle a case where the discrimination were only six or twelve months?

doctrine of capable of repetition yet evading review takes care of that. This court takes standing issues very seriously so no they wont give a pass but will apply doctrine

 

[TheBert]

No injury due to Mr Syke's being able to set up his FFL in DC at the Metro PD building. This all happened after the case was filed in District.

Yes, DC mooted this one into a case without Injury, ergo no Standing...

Sucks, this one was a well-intentioned case with good potential until DC mooted it.

Why is setting up a business within the police department a suitable remedy?

 

[Elliotte]

Won't the court be more lenient on standing and realize the difficulties in challenging an age-based restriction when every individual plaintiff grows out of the range before they can get through all the appeals?

How would they handle a case where the discrimination were only six or twelve months?

I guess you can keep cycling plaintiffs through adding them as they fit the range. That's why having a group like the NRA or SAF helps, b/c they should always have members in the age range

 

[Kharn]

doctrine of capable of repetition yet evading review takes care of that. This court takes standing issues very seriously so no they wont give a pass but will apply doctrine

Thanks for the pointer, I found that Roe v Wade discusses it in depth.