Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

HarryLogan said:

Sorry if I missed something, but when will we know the decisions of the below?

Mance v Barr
Pena v Horan
Rogers v Grewal
Gould v Lipson
Ciolek v New Jersey
Cheeseman v Polillo
Worman v Healey
Malpasso v Pallozzi
Culp v Raoul
Wilson v Cook County

Click to expand...

HarryLogan said:

Sorry if I missed something, but when will we know the decisions of the below?

Mance v Barr
Pena v Horan
Rogers v Grewal
Gould v Lipson
Ciolek v New Jersey
Cheeseman v Polillo
Worman v Healey
Malpasso v Pallozzi
Culp v Raoul
Wilson v Cook County

Click to expand...

Bob A said:

It also offers the tasty opportunity to bitch-slap NY if they have the brass to change the law once again, in an attempt to rescind the rights they so generously restored.

Click to expand...

“By incorrectly dismissing this case as moot, the court permits our docket to be manipulated in a way that should not be countenanced,” wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Click to expand...

“This ruling should come as a relief to every American worried about keeping their family safe from gun violence,” said Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action. “The NRA and its allies are losing everywhere from state legislatures to boardrooms, which means the courts are their last hope. But they’ll keep losing there too, because the courts have ruled time and again that common-sense gun laws are constitutional.”

Click to expand...

What an enormous abdication. The Supreme Court ducked its first Second Amendment case in a decade on Monday, and the only plausible explanation is that Chief Justice John Roberts wanted to avoid becoming a target of vengeful Senate Democrats.

In an unsigned per curiam opinion, the Chief joined the four liberals and a (conflicted) Justice Brett Kavanaugh in declaring moot a challenge to New York City’s onerous gun regulation (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York). ...

Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and four other Democrats also weighed in with an amicus brief threatening the Justices if they didn’t follow their orders to drop the case. “The Supreme Court is not well,” they wrote. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’”

The majority buckled and ignored previous rulings to do it. As Justice Alito writes, the Court’s precedents hold that “a case ‘becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.’” Plaintiffs want to transport their firearms without worrying about getting arrested if they stop somewhere along the way. The city even admitted in oral arguments that it’s unclear whether this is allowed. Justice Alito says this and more make the rule’s violation of the Second Amendment “not a close call.”

On the mootness point, Justice Alito also pokes his colleagues with this hypothetical: “A State enacts a law providing that any woman wishing to obtain an abortion must submit certification from five doctors that the procedure is medically necessary. After a woman sues, claiming that any requirement of physician certification is unconstitutional, the State replaces its old law with a new one requiring certification by three physicians. Would the court be required to dismiss the woman’s suit?” You know the answer.

Justice Kavanaugh’s role here is curious because, while he joined the majority on mootness, he wrote a concurrence agreeing with the dissent on the Second Amendment merits. This looks to us as if he is trying to protect the Chief Justice from being the fifth vote, and the sole “conservative,” providing a liberal victory while making clear he’s still a solid vote himself for gun rights. The phrase for this is too clever by half.

Justice Kavanaugh may agree with the Chief that the Court needs to avoid political controversies, especially with Democrats threatening to pack the Court if they win the White House and Senate in November. But the Court’s timidity on gun rights amid Senate threats means that liberal and media intimidation will escalate. The Court hasn’t taken a Second Amendment case in a decade, even as cities and states erode its landmark Heller decision bit by bit. The Court is sending a signal that the Second Amendment is the exception in the Bill of Rights, a second-class freedom.

Click to expand...

esqappellate said:

I don't agree. There is lots of case law where gov. defendants have mooted cases in this way. This case, while egregious, won't change that, either way. NYC had to eat its law and everyone knows it. But there is no way that NJ will repeal its may issue law to moot Rogers. Likewise California in Pena or the federal government in Mance. These states are true believers. Sooner or later, they will run out of room to run.

Click to expand...

danb said:

I would have said NYC was a true believer as well.

I am less sure than you about the ability for CA to play games with Pena. CA DOJ seems to have too much discretion, i suspect they will magically find an excuse to add some stuff to the roster. We will see in a few weeks though for sure.

Click to expand...

teratos said:

“This ruling should come as a relief to every American worried about keeping their family safe from gun violence,” said Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action. “The NRA and its allies are losing everywhere from state legislatures to boardrooms, which means the courts are their last hope. But they’ll keep losing there too, because the courts have ruled time and again that common-sense gun laws are constitutional.” -Shannon Watts


Does she understand the case was mooted because the law she’s in favor of was repealed? That’s the opposite of winning, Shannon.

Click to expand...

esqappellate said:

Every time she opens her mouth, something legally inane comes out of it.

Click to expand...

teratos said:

Does she understand the case was mooted because the law she’s in favor of was repealed? That’s the opposite of winning, Shannon.

Click to expand...

Steel Hunter said:

She probably doesn't understand, or if she does understand, that would imply she is aware that all her mindless drone followers have no understanding of anything regarding guns and gun laws.

Click to expand...

jbrown50 said:

Mance v Barr (18-663) whether the federal government can prohibit interstate handgun sales

Pena v Horan (18-843) (California) whether possession of a gun can be limited to "safe" guns

Rogers v Grewal (18-824) (New Jersey) whether the government can require a "special need" in order to allow carry outside the house

Gould v Lipson (18-1272) (Massachusetts) whether the government can require a "special need" in order to allow carry outside the house

Ciolek v New Jersey (19-114) whether the government can require a "justifiable need" in order to grant a carry permit

Cheeseman v Polillo (19-27) (New Jersey) whether licenses can require a "justifiable need" for possessing a gun

Pena v Horan (19-404) (Massachusetts) whether "assault weapons" and "large capacity feeding devices" can be banned

Malpasso v Pallozzi (19-423) (Maryland) whether licenses can require a "good and substantial reason" for possessing a gun

Culp v. Raoul (19-487) (Illinois) Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms requires Illinois to allow qualified non-residents to apply for an Illinois concealed-carry license.

Wilson v. Cook County (19-704) (Illinois) Whether the Second Amendment allows a local government to prohibit law-abiding residents from possessing and protecting themselves and their families with a class of rifles and ammunition magazines that are in common use at this time.

Click to expand...

Mike OTDP said:

Looking through that list, I see several groupings.

Group 1: Rogers v Grewal, Gould v Lipson, Ciolek v New Jersey, Malpasso v Pallozzi. These all deal with the question of whether or not the state can demand an especially "good" reason for issue of a carry permit.

Group 2: Pena v Horan, Pena v Horan, Wilson v. Cook County. These all deal with the question of whether or not the state has the power to regulate the sale or possession of firearms otherwise in common use.

Cheeseman? That might be the lowest hanging fruit.

Click to expand...

danb said:

Now its time to raise the stakes and put the pressure on.

Click to expand...

Steel Hunter said:

She probably doesn't understand, or if she does understand, that would imply she is aware that all her mindless drone followers have no understanding of anything regarding guns and gun laws.

Click to expand...

esqappellate said:

Not even NY would be that stupid.

Click to expand...

kcbrown said:

I disagree. If the Court were going to declare this moot from the start, it would have done so early on. It didn't. That means that at the time, there was belief that Roberts would see the case through to a decision on the merits. But Roberts didn't do that. Instead, Roberts went for the mootness route long after the point where it made sense for the Court to declare the case moot. For Roberts to do that means that he changed his position, and that means his support of the 2nd Amendment must be weak at best, and this means he is now as undependable as Kennedy with respect to support for the 2nd Amendment.

And that means that any pro-2A justice with any brains at all will ensure that the 2A cases that were held will be denied cert so as to prevent the possibility of either a very weak decision or a decision against the 2nd Amendment.

As such, my prediction has to be that the Court will deny cert to all 2A cases until such time as Trump manages to nominate another pro-2A to the bench. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I don't see how logic applied to the chain of events and the resulting situation would yield any other reasonable expectation.

Click to expand...

esqappellate said:

All these cases are on the docket for this Friday's conference. Which means we could know as soon as this Friday, or (more likely) when the order list comes out next Monday. I think they might relist all of them for May 17 (the next Friday conf. on the schedule), which would give them a little more time to sort it out. No rush, as any cert grant would carry the case over the summer and be argued next Term. I do think that we will get a cert grant on at least one case before the end of the Term and the rest could be continued to be held. One way or another, we will/should have movement soon.

Click to expand...