One month down, one month to go
Two weeks x 2
One month down, one month to go
One month down, one month to go
The order states that the parties have 21 days to file briefs on whether the case should be reheard en banc. Under the 9th circuit general order, once the briefs are in, the active judges have 21 days to exchange memos among themselves. The en banc coordinator then calls for a vote and the judges on the court have 14 days to cast a vote. A failure to vote is deemed a "no" vote. So it is 21 + 21 + 14 which equals 56. Roughly two months for a decision on whether to grant rehearing en banc (not two weeks)
The Hawaii one was typical "Bood in the Streets" rhetoric that has no basis in reality. One only has to look at the 43 (?) states allowing licensed carry. Texas has evaluated licensed CHL carriers, finding license holders being more lawful than the population at large.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm
SAF/Gura & Calguns Foundation (Richards case) submitted an Amicus as well opposing the rehearing en Banc of Peruta. Gura brings up some very good arguments as to why Peruta may not be the best vehicle for CA9 and/or SCOTUS, given the original defendant (Sheriff Gore) is no longer involved. AG Harris or the Brady's would pollute Peruta going forth.
This leaves Richard as the remaining pure case, he says...and it more directly impacts CA State Statute (vs Sheriffs execution).
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...Curiae-in-Opposition-to-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf
So...
Was the order date we are referring to Dec 03?
If so, the outside decision date is Jan 28?
(or to put it another way, the infamous "2 weeks" watch starts on Jan 14? )
Well, maybe. The 56 days assumes no one writes a dissenting opinion. If the court decides to issue an opinion (e.g. a dissent from denial of en banc***) along with a decision, it will take longer.... by about another 2 weeks.
***or a sternly worded dissent from the granting of en banc that gets SCT attention.
If en banc is denied but there are dissenting opinions, would the 9th wait until the dissents are finished considering the original ruling in essence struck down a law?
If en banc is denied but there are dissenting opinions, would the 9th wait until the dissents are finished considering the original ruling in essence struck down a law?
The order states that the parties have 21 days to file briefs on whether the case should be reheard en banc. Under the 9th circuit general order, once the briefs are in, the active judges have 21 days to exchange memos among themselves. The en banc coordinator then calls for a vote and the judges on the court have 14 days to cast a vote. A failure to vote is deemed a "no" vote. So it is 21 + 21 + 14 which equals 56. Roughly two months for a decision on whether to grant rehearing en banc (not two weeks)
I can't imagine in a case of this magnitude, there wouldn't be dissents.
So...
It's a yea or nea vote (non-votes are a default no). And then the majority and minority side get to put out an opinion/ dissent?
If I'm correct, when SCOTUS decides to take/ not take a case, no opinion/ dissent is given... would this not be similar?
No, dissents from a refusal to grant rehearing en banc are actually quite common, especially in the Ninth Circuit. There is no majority opinion explaining a decision to grant rehearing en banc, as there is no reason to issue an opinion for that. So we are just talking about dissents from a refusal to grant. If the court were to refuse to grant en banc, I agree that there will likely be at least one dissent. and maybe more.
BTW, on occasion, you will get dissents from a decision by the SCT not to grant cert in a given case.
refusal to grant... dissent. grant... no dissent.
So, the longer we go not hearing anything, the more likely no grant.
What is interesting here is what the Court will do with the rehearing en banc petition from the Cal. AG. Denying en banc AND intervention for her ends the case, as there is no one left to petition the SCT.