En banc Decision in Peruta -- a loss

[Kharn]

Except that Peruta didn't officially go to conference yet, so something really odd is going on. But a per curiam would be a welcome spanking.

 

[Southwest Chuck]

Could they overturn the enbanc ruling and reinstate the original 3 judge panel opinion from the 9th in a per curiam and say see Heller?

Not sure how that works ....

 

[Not_an_outlaw]

Will have to look to see if he was on the panel.

Anyone want to speculate on whether they are researching the intervention? In the back of my mind I've always thought thst the procedural aspect of his case was suspect.

Can you explain this? Intervention issue?

 

[Kharn]

Could they overturn the enbanc ruling and reinstate the original 3 judge panel opinion from the 9th in a per curiam and say see Heller?

Not sure how that works ....

They could, but that would be a controversial decision on cert rather than the merits.

 

[jcutonilli]

It is interesting. Recall that Friedman was relisted many times simply to allow a dissent from the denial of cert. to be written. Ditto for Jackson, which was relisted 7 times! Similarly, Caetano was relisted many times to allow a per curiam opinion and Justice Alito's concurrence to be written. If the case continues to be relisted, my guess would be that someone is writing something.

It does not appear to be "relisted" as it is not on the scotusblog relist watch list. It appears to be rescheduled before it even gets to conference. Apparently "relist" means they discuss it in conference and decide to continue the discussion in the next conference before making a decision. "rescheduled" apparently means that they don't discuss it in conference but will discuss it in another conference.

It is unclear if you think there is any difference between relisting and rescheduling.

 

[jcutonilli]

Can you explain this? Intervention issue?

The state of CA was not a party until the en banc panel. The en banc panel let CA intervene or join the case. Typically this is not allowed under most circumstances.

 

[esqappellate]

It does not appear to be "relisted" as it is not on the scotusblog relist watch list. It appears to be rescheduled before it even gets to conference. Apparently "relist" means they discuss it in conference and decide to continue the discussion in the next conference before making a decision. "rescheduled" apparently means that they don't discuss it in conference but will discuss it in another conference.

It is unclear if you think there is any difference between relisting and rescheduling.

Those terms may be interchangeable but even if that distinction exists, the effect is the same. BTW SCOTUSblog doesn't know either what the distinction is and the Court has never told us. We are shooting in the dark in guessing

 

[press1280]

The state of CA was not a party until the en banc panel. The en banc panel let CA intervene or join the case. Typically this is not allowed under most circumstances.

AND not to mention the actual sheriff who was sued has refused to participate.

 

[danb]

AND not to mention the actual sheriff who was sued has refused to participate.

Right, this is what I meant. The CA AG hijacked ("intervened") in the case. They declined to intervene and argue the case, then changed their mind when panel went against them.

Some chance in my mind that they take argument on the intervention, not the 2nd amendment aspect. Or maybe just reject the intervention as improper.

In Caetano they never really said outright that the stun gun ban was unconstitutional, they merely rejected the arguments of the MA court and remanded. Everybody conceded after that.

Vacate the intervention, vacate the en-banc opinion, reinstate the original 3-judge opinion, maybe give some guidance in dicta, then see what happens...

 

[press1280]

Right, this is what I meant. The CA AG hijacked ("intervened") in the case. They declined to intervene and argue the case, then changed their mind when panel went against them.

Some chance in my mind that they take argument on the intervention, not the 2nd amendment aspect. Or maybe just reject the intervention as improper.

In Caetano they never really said outright that the stun gun ban was unconstitutional, they merely rejected the arguments of the MA court and remanded. Everybody conceded after that.

Vacate the intervention, vacate the en-banc opinion, reinstate the original 3-judge opinion, maybe give some guidance in dicta, then see what happens...

The only thing about that is Peruta is not making that one of the questions being asked of the court, so it's unclear if they'd dig that deep into the case if petitioners aren't specifically asking for that aspect to be overturned

 

[Southwest Chuck]

The state of CA was not a party until the en banc panel. The en banc panel let CA intervene or join the case. Typically this is not allowed under most circumstances.

AND not to mention the actual sheriff who was sued has refused to participate.

Let's not forget that the Plaintiffs attorney didn't object to the intervention either. Instead they welcomed it. I think THAT fact in and of itself, would be cause to doubt that line of attack on the decision, procedurally, anyway.

 

[press1280]

It is interesting. Recall that Friedman was relisted many times simply to allow a dissent from the denial of cert. to be written. Ditto for Jackson, which was relisted 7 times! Similarly, Caetano was relisted many times to allow a per curiam opinion and Justice Alito's concurrence to be written. If the case continues to be relisted, my guess would be that someone is writing something.

I searched and found several cases rescheduled and they seem to follow this pattern (the case will then be relisted several times). Almost all ended with "something" happening, like a dissent or concurrence or the case getting cert. Only 1 I could find ended with a straight up denial. But this was only perhaps a dozen cases or so.

 

[pcfixer]

Peruta:
Apr 10 2017DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2017.Apr 12 2017 Rescheduled.


We could see Justice Neil Gorsuch in action with regard to Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/04/argument-preview-just-playground-dispute/


The state rejects the church’s contention that the playground program should be subject to strict scrutiny. It notes that the program is one of limited availability, and certainly not a “generally available public benefit”: Over two-thirds of the applicants were rejected. Moreover, it argues, strict scrutiny only applies when a government policy treats otherwise similarly situated groups differently based on a “suspect classification” such as race or country of origin. When it comes to religion, the state explains, the Supreme Court has found “suspect classifications” only when laws or programs distinguish among, or give preference to, particular religious denominations. But here the playground program treats all religions the same.




Is it possible to see how the USSC on 'strict scrutiny' with this case and possible Peruta in the same light.
1st and 2nd A on strict scruity?

 

[esqappellate]

Let's not forget that the Plaintiffs attorney didn't object to the intervention either. Instead they welcomed it. I think THAT fact in and of itself, would be cause to doubt that line of attack on the decision, procedurally, anyway.

And that line of attack is NOT in the cert petition and is hence waived.

 

[swinokur]

on the media radar.

http://www.newsweek.com/guns-americ...gun-case-could-expand-second-amendment-584408

 

[GlocksAndPatriots]

And that line of attack is NOT in the cert petition and is hence waived.

Which is fine with me. I'm not interested in the case being disposed of on procedural grounds (even if it means a "win" for those plaintiffs) if it means the Constitutional question goes unanswered.

 

[Inigoes]

Any chance “Chester v. Laroe" will have an impact on Peruta?

 

[danb]

Any chance “Chester v. Laroe" will have an impact on Peruta?

That is an interesting possibility.

 

[pcfixer]

Any chance “Chester v. Laroe" will have an impact on Peruta?

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/town-of-chester-v-laroe-estates-inc/

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/16-605-pet-merits-reply.pdf

Conclusion "The judgement of the Court of Appeals should be reversed".

 

[Peaceful John]

Any chance “Chester v. Laroe" will have an impact on Peruta?

Good catch, Inigoes!