CA4 Issues Stay, Expedites Appeal

[navycraig]

I didn't explain well.

There are 4 outcomes in total, reliant on 2 different panels of judges.
The first panel can issue a stay or not. Obviously they don't determine the merits and examine just the stay issues. The second panel examines the merits.

The first panel doesn't want to step on the second panel's toes by being like "oh this is obvious" and then either getting undercut or have it decided a whole different way. I agree they didn't do their whole job, but at the same time they couldn't accurately predict that the 2nd panel would agree with them on how easy it is.

This is still the least emotionally rollarcoastery path anyways. Imagine if we had gotten permits and then had them all nullified. It's better to wait 2 more weeks and then have them for real right?

Two more weeks???

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Two more weeks???

Running gag.

 

[jaredm1]

Well, I can scratch one thing off my list of things to do next week.

 

[Squaredout]

2 words IMHO

Judicial Cowardice.

They kicked this to the Merits Panel without much deliberation of the 4 part test

Sad indeed.

yes very sad.

 

[cantonglocker]

why even have the ****ing panel if they aren't going to weigh the real facts at hand???????? What a crock of shit.

oh, and **** Maryland. Just another reason to move.

 

[Mr H]

They "hold" them 90 days before, what's another 90 days?

Seriously, the relationship between MSI and MSP may be helpful in this current stay period to "negotiate" the procedures while the court conducts its business. As was posted several times before, MSP is not the problem as much as our legislators and being in "unchartered" legal territory.

As it turned out, "90 days" never meant anything (which is about what I thought might be the case, but that's a 'whatever' at this point)

My question for the brain trust is as follows...

What is keeping MSP from declaring a new, freer G&S standard (since they can't seem to get one codified from on high), and issuing permits based on that?? They'd still be within the law, AFAIK. People would be getting permits, and they can be seen as the Good Guys.

 

[sbmike]

While I, like everyone else, was hopeful, I really did not expect the CA4 to deny the stay. I would have liked for the three appellate judges to decide in our favor but courts in general (I feel) tend to be very conservative entities and even more so when you start dealing with the federal CAs, regardless of their individual liberal/conservative leanings. In this case, I really didn't see the CA4 changing the status quo without having the appeal run it's natural course particularly since from a legal standpoint it is a major deviation from what has been the norm for more than 40 years. It doesn't matter that in our opinion MD has been wrong for 40 years but from their point of view they will want to read the whole book, not just a synopsis before deciding anything. That's not to say they are likely to decide in favor of the appellants, just that they choose not to do it hastily and perhaps temporarily. Just my opinion, an opinion, not THE opinion.

 

[esqappellate]

esqappellate,

Most of us are not familiar with the processes of CA.

If the orals are held in late October what is a "normal" time for them to release a decision?

The orals and decision will consist of a 3 judge panel correct?

How likely is it that the loser will request a enbanc hearing? How likely is an enbanc hearing request being granted?

How much time does an enbanc hearing add to the total?

I am just trying to figure out what comes next and in what order things will happen. This is all new stuff to a lot of us.

It seems to me that even with the expedited schedule this could still be dragged out for a long time.

I know you don't like to give out numbers and timeline but if you had to produce a wild ass guess as to what will happen next up to and including a SCOTUS visit what would your guess be?

All good questions:

Appeals are heard by a panel of three judges selected by the clerk under a rotation system. See CA4 Local rules

With an argument in late October, the panel is likely to rule....when the panel decides to rule. That said, the case has been expedited. I expect the panel to give it expedited treatment. Maybe 3 months? I have had rulings in much less time. I also have a current case in the 9th Circuit where I am still waiting for a decision after argument was held in September of 2010. But that extraordinary, even for the 9th Circuit (it won't happen here in this case).

I think it quite likely that the loser will seek rehearing en banc. I would . How likely it would be granted is unknowable now. One of the en banc criteria is inter-circuit conflict and that is quite possible given the pendency of appeals now in the CA3 and the CA1 and the CA7.

En banc, if granted could easily add months, maybe a year. The court may or may not order new briefs. It would almost certainly order en banc oral argument. Great fun, BTW (I've done several). Then you got wait for a decision, which takes longer because, more likely than not, there are going to be one or more dissenting opinions to be written and circulated and debated within chambers. It's a big deal.

A SCT petition by the loser is also likely, but the odds on that being granted are also right now unknowable. Again, one of the cert factors is inter-circuit conflict and we just don't know anything about that yet.

Welcome to the big leagues. Don't forget to duck the bean balls.

 

[montoya32]

What are the damages due to those who applied and were denied when the G&S reason is found unconstitutional? Does the state just get away with it or is there a penalty to be paid? Can I lock up someone in my basement for years, then have a court tell me I am wrong and walk away? NO! This is complete bullsh*t. Is this our system? Yes. Is it fair? NO!

 

[navycraig]

I didn't explain well.

There are 4 outcomes in total, reliant on 2 different panels of judges.
The first panel can issue a stay or not. Obviously they don't determine the merits and examine just the stay issues. The second panel examines the merits.

The first panel doesn't want to step on the second panel's toes by being like "oh this is obvious" and then either getting undercut or have it decided a whole different way. I agree they didn't do their whole job, but at the same time they couldn't accurately predict that the 2nd panel would agree with them on how easy it is.

This is still the least emotionally rollarcoastery path anyways. Imagine if we had gotten permits and then had them all nullified. It's better to wait 2 more weeks and then have them for real right?

If "A" does not want to step on "B", what is the point of "A" in the first place? They should not try to predict what will happen later, but focus on doing thier job vis a vis upholding the law...or in this case, ruling on a stay motion based on the briefs presented and not based on that they may look bad if they are overturned in the end.

Rubbish.

 

[MDFF2008]

Mr. H

The reason MSP can't exists at 100 State Steet Annapolis MD.

 

[m4strmind]

I am starting to lose all faith in the "system".

 

[eruby]

I can almost see Dean Wormer saying 'I think we've heard enough' and Neidermeyer screaming at Gura 'he said that's it, are you deaf?'

Small loss today, big win (hopefully) in a few months.

 

[MDFF2008]

I am starting to lose all faith in the "system".

I believe both Heller and McDonald were stayed by lower courts.

 

[faze]

Maryland SUCKS SO BAD. What is wrong with this effing piece of shit state?

 

[Mr H]

Mr. H

The reason MSP can't exists at 100 State Steet Annapolis MD.

Yeah... I kinda figured that would be the answer.

But I still wonder if that might be legally possible.

 

[Mr H]

Maryland SUCKS SO BAD. What is wrong with this effing piece of shit state?

"Maryland" didn't make this decision, folks!

Yes, they are the source of the problem, but this was a decision made by a Federal Court.

 

[cantonglocker]

As it turned out, "90 days" never meant anything (which is about what I thought might be the case, but that's a 'whatever' at this point)

My question for the brain trust is as follows...

What is keeping MSP from declaring a new, freer G&S standard (since they can't seem to get one codified from on high), and issuing permits based on that?? They'd still be within the law, AFAIK. People would be getting permits, and they can be seen as the Good Guys.

the fact that they don't want you to have a permit

 

[2ndCharter]

Be pretty damned daring if a vast majority of us (and by vast I mean 50k or more) just decided to ignore the legislature and show up at lawyers mall carrying long guns on our backs...


Yes, I know, that would bring instant hurt and breaks the whole protest law garbage.

Then don't have a protest, have a "picnic" at some public park.

 

[Seagrave1963]

As it turned out, "90 days" never meant anything (which is about what I thought might be the case, but that's a 'whatever' at this point)

It was more of a sarcastic twist on the "2 more weeks" line!