SCOTUS 5/1

[NYRangers917]

So maybe a stupid question, but if one case say the NJ case gets ruled unconstitutional would that then in turn make all the G&S schemes unconstitutional as well by default?

Or does each state need to have its own ruling?

I dint pay much attention in civics class....

 

[MJD438]

So maybe a stupid question, but if one case say the NJ case gets ruled unconstitutional would that then in turn make all the G&S schemes unconstitutional as well by default?

Or does each state need to have its own ruling?

I dint pay much attention in civics class....

IIRC - if one of the G&S-style cases gets decided as unconstitutional, the others would be Granted/Vacated/Remanded (GVR) back to the Circuit Court for review based on the new ruling. Pretty sure Mark will be along to correct/expand, as the lawyer that he is and I am not.

 

[Inigoes]

IIRC - if one of the G&S-style cases gets decided as unconstitutional, the others would be Granted/Vacated/Remanded (GVR) back to the Circuit Court for review based on the new ruling. Pretty sure Mark will be along to correct/expand, as the lawyer that he is and I am not.

Color me an optimist, especially after being reminded of Caetano related to "bearing" arms. I know the odds are long to non-existent, but I am still holding onto a glimmer of hope for a per curium GVR on the carry cases. The GVRs would say "See Caetano", as the ultimate smackdown.

Realistically, I am not holding my breathe for anything this session.

 

[danb]

Color me an optimist, especially after being reminded of Caetano related to "bearing" arms. I know the odds a long, to non-existent, but I am still holding onto a glimmer of hope for a per curium GVR on the carry cases. The GVRs would say "See Caetano", as the ultimate smackdown.

Realistically, I am not holding my breathe for anything this session.

More than an optimist. I'd say you are smoking crack. You are more likely to wake up to a naked Melania Trump after a night of drunken debauchery.

 

[Inigoes]

You are more likely to wake up to a naked Melania Trump after a night of drunken debauchery.

How did you find out?

 

[danb]

How did you find out?

She told me she was going over right as she left here.

 

[esqappellate]

IIRC - if one of the G&S-style cases gets decided as unconstitutional, the others would be Granted/Vacated/Remanded (GVR) back to the Circuit Court for review based on the new ruling. Pretty sure Mark will be along to correct/expand, as the lawyer that he is and I am not.

Mike, right you are. A Supreme Court decision is not a statute. It is binding precedent that controls future cases presenting the same legal issues. Federal courts (and courts in general) act only through cases that are brought to them. See UNITED STATES v. SINENENG-SMITH, No. 19-67 (May 7, 2020).

A SCT decision that establishes a rule of law is controlling in that case and any other future case. But the effect of the decision all depends on the ruling and how broad it is. Such questions get decided on a case by case basis. So, for example, if the SCT rules that NJ's may issue law (Rogers) is unconstitutional, than all may issue statutes should likewise fail, but it may take a future case to establish that result. The Court would GVR all the may issue cases (the other 4 of them). Thus, if a state (e.g., MD) (on remand) refuses to follow that ruling and asserts that its may issue law is "different" then that contention would be litigated in the remanded case. As a rule, states will not make that assertion (its law is different) unless they had some arguably or colorable legally justified reason for doing so. They may be misguided but they aren't generally legally stupid enough to out-and-out defy a SCT decision, especially since they pay attorneys fees under Section 1988 if they lose and individual officials may be held personally liable for damages if they fail to follow clearly established binding precedent (they lose qualified immunity). For example, if NJ's law is struck down, it is quite possible (even likely) that Frosh would cave on MD's law at issue in Malpasso (which would have been GVRed).

Another example, suppose the SCT took the Pena case (Cal. microstamping case) and held that tiers of scrutiny analysis is not the legally proper way of adjudging 2A cases. The Court would then GVR all the pending 2A cases that used tiers of scrutiny (all of them) and tell the lower courts to reconsider the decision below using the right legal standard established by the decision in Pena. In each of those GVRed cases, the parties would relitigate the case under the proper legal standard. The losing party in any of these GVRed cases could then seek cert on any judgment that resulted, if there was any dispute as to the controlling effect of the SCT's decision or a dispute on how the standard was applied in that particular case.

 

[esqappellate]

Color me an optimist, especially after being reminded of Caetano related to "bearing" arms. I know the odds are long to non-existent, but I am still holding onto a glimmer of hope for a per curium GVR on the carry cases. The GVRs would say "See Caetano", as the ultimate smackdown.

Realistically, I am not holding my breathe for anything this session.

Will. Not. Happen. (Sorry)

 

[TheBert]

It seems to me that they may well consolidate several of the cases. We've got two big questions:

1. Can the state ban broad classes of firearms and accoutrements that are functionally safe for the operator?

2. Can the state make the bearing of arms a privilege denied to law-abiding citizens without a "good reason" defined by the state?

Arms is defined as weapons of war.

...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[danb]

Bump


T-70 minutes.

 

[teratos]

More than an optimist. I'd say you are smoking crack. You are more likely to wake up to a naked Melania Trump after a night of drunken debauchery.

Can I pick Ivanka?

 

[press1280]

Looks like we’ll wait another week.

But the Beers case was ruled moot?

 

[danb]

Can I pick Ivanka?

Well, its your fantasy, not mine.

 

[danb]

Looks like we’ll wait another week.

But the Beers case was ruled moot?

From the government brief:

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/beers-v-barr/

Petitioner contends (Pet. 9-26) that Section 922(g)(4) violates the Second Amendment as applied to him. But petitioner’s challenge to Section 922(g)(4) is now moot, because petitioner is no longer disabled from owning a firearm and has, in fact, acquired one.

In the later brief, looks like petitioner tried to argue voluntary cessation, but the Supreme Court was having none of it.

 

[HoCoShooter]

Crap.

Another week for some Dem BS to derail things, if nothing else

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

All 10 relisted for 5/21. I predict more relists......

 

[Decoy]

All 10 relisted for 5/21. I predict more relists......

Is that good or bad?

 

[aireyc]

Is that good or bad?

More neutral than anything.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Is that good or bad?

More neutral than anything.

Perhaps, but I'm a little more optimistic than that.

Think about it. They have ten petitions to consider. They're not going to hear all ten. They might consolidate two, but it's more likely they'll pick one. So, which one (or two) to hear and which to hold or deny? I can very much see that at this point there are four, five or more justices that want to hear at least one. But it is very possible that that four justices have not agreed upon which petitions to hear. They're probably hashing that out now.

Remember too, that Friday's conference also had 13 (I think) qualified immunity petitions. They've probably got the same kind of challenge with those as well.

I think it is highly unlikely that they'll deny all 10 of the gun petitions. For one thing, Thomas and Alito (and perhaps others) will lose their shit.

 

[Steel Hunter]

Is that good or bad?

It's good. All the cases are still under consideration at this point. It's only bad if cases get denied or all do not get relisted.