Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

danb said:

OPINION!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf


I have not read it....

Click to expand...

PER CURIAM.

In the District Court, petitioners challenged a New York City rule regarding the transport of firearms. Petitioners claimed that the rule violated the Second Amendment. Petitioners sought declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the rule insofar as the rule prevented their transport of firearms to a second home or shooting range outside of the city. The District Court and the Court of Appeals rejected petitioners’ claim. See 883 F. 3d 45 (CA2 2018). We granted certiorari. 586 U. S. ___ (2019). After we granted certiorari, the State of New York amended its firearm licensing statute, and the City amended the rule so that petitioners may now transport firearms to a second home or shooting range outside of the city, which is the precise relief that petitioners requested in the prayer for relief in their complaint. App. 48. Petitioners’ claim for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the City’s old rule is therefore moot. Petitioners now argue, however, that the new rule may still infringe their rights. In particular, petitioners claim that they may not be allowed to stop for coffee,

gas, food, or restroom breaks on the way to their second homes or shooting ranges outside of the city. The City responds that those routine stops are entirely permissible under the new rule. We do not here decide that dispute about the new rule; as we stated in Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U. S. 472, 482–483 (1990): “Our ordinary practice in disposing of a case that has become moot on appeal is to vacate the judgment with directions to dismiss. See, e.g., Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U. S., at 204; United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36, 39–40 (1950). However, in instances where the mootness is attributable to a change in the legal framework governing the case, and where the plaintiff may have some residual claim under the new framework that was understandably not asserted previously, our practice is to vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings in which the parties may, if necessary, amend their pleadings or develop the record more fully. See Diffenderfer v. Central Baptist Church of Miami, Inc., 404 U. S. 412, 415 (1972).” Petitioners also argue that, even though they have not previously asked for damages with respect to the City’s old rule, they still could do so in this lawsuit. Petitioners did not seek damages in their complaint; indeed, the possibility of a damages claim was not raised until well into the litigation in this Court. The City argues that it is too late for petitioners to now add a claim for damages. On remand, the Court of Appeals and the District Court may consider whether petitioners may still add a claim for damages in this lawsuit with respect to New York City’s old rule. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for such proceedings as are appropriate.

It is so ordered

Click to expand...

On remand, the Court of Appeals and the District Court may considerwhether petitioners may still add a claim for damages inthis lawsuit with respect to New York City’s old rule. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for such proceedings as are appropriate.

Click to expand...

Inigoes said:

Orders list is out also...

Click to expand...

danb said:

so, lets see what they do with all the cases that they've held....

Click to expand...

danb said:

Kavanaugh says that they should take up another case.

I strongly suspect that they will.... we will find out later today or tomorrow if any cases are added to the conferece.

Click to expand...

also agree with JUSTICE ALITO’s general analysis of Heller and McDonald. Post, at 25; see District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008); McDonald v. Chicago, 561
U. S. 742 (2010); Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F. 3d 1244 (CADC 2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting). And I share JUSTICE ALITO’s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one ofthe several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.

Click to expand...

krucam said:

Justice Kavanaugh's statement is promising:

Click to expand...

krucam said:

Justice Kavanaugh's statement is promising:

Click to expand...

danb said:

There were by my count 6 votes for mootness.

Kavanaguh is telegraphing a vote for cert and also a vote for Alito's analysis. So, I think we have the votes for another case, the question is which is the best case. Any case with Clement as the lead will rise to the top of the pile, IMO.

Click to expand...

Boxcab said:

Is not the 2020/21 schedule already filled? Will we have to wait until 2022 for a ruling?






.

Click to expand...

krucam said:

I still think Pena (CA microstamping, handgun roster) is the lowest hanging fruit and most likely to get Roberts on board. We'll see I guess...

Click to expand...