Forget em. It's just a proposed rule change. It's not even a city ordinance for christ's sake. There's nothing stopping NYC from reverting once the case is dropped.
Citations of court rulings are in the footnotes from the web-page I pulled it from.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RS22599.html#_Toc230583185
Exceptions to mootness doctrine:
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RS22599.html
Anyone have any doubt NYC could return to it's old ways the day after the case was mooted?
No.
The Surpreme Court should foreclose the possibility.
One of the applicants got a permit but there were other applicants who didn't get one. Reason they gave the one permit was because it was so egregious and probably feared it looked bad enough that Scotus would take it
Didn't Jersey swear they would change or have a state-level loss they used to claim a SC cert petition was moot, then immediately went back to the same ol' crap once cert was denied? Might have been Drake?
Voluntary Cessation
If a defendant voluntarily terminates the allegedly unlawful conduct after the lawsuit has been filed but retains the power to resume the practice at any time, a federal court may deem the case nonmoot. The "heavy burden" of persuading the court that a case has been mooted by the defendant's voluntary actions lies with the party asserting mootness, and the standard for such a determination is a "stringent" one: "if subsequent events ma[ke] it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior [can] not reasonably be expected to recur." This exception is supported by the Supreme Court because, in addition to ensuring that the defendant is not "free to return to his old ways," there is "a public interest in having the legality of the practices settled."
The Police Department has strongly believed, and continues to maintain, that the present Rule furthers an important public-safety interest. However, in light of the Osterweil decision and the ongoing NYSRPA case, the Police Department has reviewed the Rule, and has determined that it is possible to modify it...
NYC isn’t even changing the law, only a regulation designed as a last minute attempt to delay SCOTUS ruling.
Hopefully the Justices will see this stunt for what it is. Just a delay tactic on the way to Nationwide Shall Issue
Wouldn’t changing the law make their intentions even more obvious to the Court? It would take slightly more effort but also reveal their intentions to avoid a decision against their actions?
In the end, that's the relief plaintiffs are seeking. If the city effectively gives them that relief then there's no complaint, lawyers fees aside.
The Den city council will never change the law, because that goes against the party plank of gun control.
The NYC to appear genuine, they need to change the law, not the regulations that interpret the law.
Is it relief? What stops them from going back 3 minutes after the Supreme Court dismisses the case?
That's the big question. We've seen numerous jurisdictions fold over stun gun bans, so, what makes those different other than the timing (They fold as soon as the complaint hits)?
That's the big question. We've seen numerous jurisdictions fold over stun gun bans, so, what makes those different other than the timing (They fold as soon as the complaint hits)?
Folding now denies the plaintiffs a win for Section 1988 purposes, they can't recover attorney fees on a moot case.
Well, they need court ordered relief to get fees. If NYC moots out the case like this, the SCT will enter a Munsingwear order, vacating the 2D Circuit decision and ordering the 2d Circuit to remand the case to the district court with orders to vacate the DCt's decision. I wonder if that is enough "court ordered" relief to satisfy the test.