Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

[HaveBlue]

The Comcast case was argued on 11/13. CSPAN has it on their site but doesn’t show the date it was actually published.

The same audio was published on YouTube on 11/16. Presumably it was downloaded from CSPAN.

If CSPAN publishes it, that could happen quickly.

 

[Kharn]

SCOTUSBlog symposium on the case

Including contributions from David Kopel and Randy Barnett, the CT SG, Louisiana deputy SG, a religious liberties group complaining about voluntary cessation by states against prisoners with counsel vs pro se, and others.

 

[motorcoachdoug]

It makes for interesting reading. A couple of the authors say the case is now moot as well.

 

[Stoveman]

It's going to be a circus Monday morning.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

 

[delaware_export]

I was thinking this says what is wrong with the moot claim. Basically gov allowing gov to spit in the eye of the 2nd amendment. As they say, the assumption that .gov is acting in good faith seems invalidated by the actions here and in other places that restrict 2a related rights.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/11/...-fighting-about-in-nysrpa-v-city-of-new-york/

 

[Mike OTDP]

I think the potential for damages kills the mootness argument. No, I think this one goes to a ruling. And I don't see how NYC wins it.

There's an old saying, "Hard cases make bad law." I suspect this will be the reverse, an easy case that leads to good law.

 

[danb]

I was thinking this says what is wrong with the moot claim. Basically gov allowing gov to spit in the eye of the 2nd amendment. As they say, the assumption that .gov is acting in good faith seems invalidated by the actions here and in other places that restrict 2a related rights.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/11/...-fighting-about-in-nysrpa-v-city-of-new-york/

But they are not simply looking at this case. They have other cases being held.

I think that the USG has a strong argument its not moot, but at the same time I think that the posture of this case creates a chicken-or-egg situation where mootness it part depends on the constitutionality of the original law. I also am not sure that this is a good case for the SCT to issue guidance for mootness when a law is changed to frustrate review, as it has been here.

A stickler for process (like Gorsuch, Alito, btw) might say that the case is moot, whereas a Justice who wants to avoid the incentive in the future to frustrate review will want to punish the City and disincentivize this behavior.

I see as a possible compromise the court takes one or more of the other cases being held and then GVRs this case based on the outcome of (one of) those. Trial court can then determine whether damages can be awarded or whether its moot.

 

[delaware_export]

interesting. and yeah, i kinda follow. (i am so NOT a lawyer, just johnq trying to understand and learn!)

as much as anything else, it still makes me want to see scotus react to the fact that, prior to changes in an attempt to moot, all the courts up to scotus didn't have a problem with this ?law?rule?

so, if the lower courts were all wrong, as far as the original law, before moot attempts, where is the court system being held to account?

no one in .gov had a issue with this until scotus poked its nose into the case. then the attempts to moot.

so, i get they may accept mootness here. the ny folks may never try this one again, but with politicians throwing gobs of anti 2a crap against a wall every year, and letting it stick, and scotus only reviewing 1 or 2 cases per decade, is not good.

and how will any of the different possible rulings effect all those other cases? obviously that's the bigger question here.

i will definitely be looking for the link to listen to the arguments on/after dec 2.

But they are not simply looking at this case. They have other cases being held.

I think that the USG has a strong argument its not moot, but at the same time I think that the posture of this case creates a chicken-or-egg situation where mootness it part depends on the constitutionality of the original law. I also am not sure that this is a good case for the SCT to issue guidance for mootness when a law is changed to frustrate review, as it has been here.

A stickler for process (like Gorsuch, Alito, btw) might say that the case is moot, whereas a Justice who wants to avoid the incentive in the future to frustrate review will want to punish the City and disincentivize this behavior.

I see as a possible compromise the court takes one or more of the other cases being held and then GVRs this case based on the outcome of (one of) those. Trial court can then determine whether damages can be awarded or whether its moot.

 

[Fox123]

I think they want to rule in this case, to get rid of all the other cases being held.



The million dollar question, do we enjoy the outcome....

 

[teratos]

I think they want to rule in this case, to get rid of all the other cases being held.



The million dollar question, do we enjoy the outcome....

I think it is very difficult to side with NYC policy as applied to an enumerated civil right.

 

[Allen65]

I think it is very difficult to side with NYC policy as applied to an enumerated civil right.

It's hard to support NYC's position even if the standard is rational basis.

 

[danb]

They definitely want to rule, that's why they granted cert.

But personally I'd still rather chalk this up as a win, have them take another case, and have them vacate and remand this one subject to the new one.

A narrow ruling on this case makes for a narrow scope of the 2nd amendment. And this case allows a very very narrow ruling only on transport, not carry. Heck they could decide this on Commerce Clause grounds, not even the 2A. I'd rather see a broader case now .

Dont be fooled: the City attempting to moot this case will be interpreted by the court as nothing less than the City expects to lose badly. If anything, on the merits, a 5-4 decision became a 6-3 or 7-2 now because the City effectively conceded. the Justices who might write a dissent are now thinking even the City does not want to defend the law. That makes the Justices who voted for cert to overturn the 2nd circuit more confident.

 

[Decoy]

I think they want to rule in this case, to get rid of all the other cases being held.



The million dollar question, do we enjoy the outcome....

I'm sure Roberts will find a way to F**k us.

 

[Mike OTDP]

A narrow ruling on this case makes for a narrow scope of the 2nd amendment. And this case allows a very very narrow ruling only on transport, not carry.

Perhaps. But it also sets precedent. It means that the other carry cases get GVR'd...to Circuit Courts of Appeal that have been quietly stuffed with conservative judges.

We're not going to win everything on a single ruling. But a couple of precedent-setting cases and we may very well see the provisions of the Civil Rights Act start to be applied. And violations of that carry criminal penalties.

 

[rambling_one]

I remain a pessimistic pessimist when it comes to the 2A issue. Been burned so many times. With a life expectancy quickly evaporating, I can’t afford to hold my breath.

 

[danb]

Perhaps. But it also sets precedent. It means that the other carry cases get GVR'd...to Circuit Courts of Appeal that have been quietly stuffed with conservative judges.

We're not going to win everything on a single ruling. But a couple of precedent-setting cases and we may very well see the provisions of the Civil Rights Act start to be applied. And violations of that carry criminal penalties.

Judges will simply say "transport" is protected and nothing more, same as the way they misread Heller, and limit the precedent to the ask in NY.

I rather something broader as precedent.

 

[rockstarr]

2 more weeks

 

[Blacksmith101]

How long after the orals will it be before we know something? Do we have to wait until next June just to find out they decided to moot the case or will a moot decision be released sooner than an actual ruling on the merits?

 

[danb]

If its dismissed as moot we will likely know right away.

Otherwise, I'd guess we get an opinion in June.

 

[ironpony]