Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

[PowPow]

There are at least a half dozen 2A cases waiting in the wings (being held) that could be granted as early as Friday.


I am torn, but not for the same reason. Mootness muddies this case, so the opinion in this case will always have an asterisk. This is not (now) a great case on which to issue an opinion.

The main problem with mootness as I have said before is that the case is moot if and only if the underlying law was constitutional. If it was constitutional, plaintiffs got everything that they asked for. If it was unconstitutional, plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction, all that goes with that, and to sue for damages. Its now impossible to disentangle mootness with the merits.

Mootness is ok with me if they grant cert on another case. Better yet, I think that they should grant another case, hold this one, and GVR this one in June. Then have the lower court sort out the mootness mess.

Yes, please. Pretty please with sugar on top?

 

[Boxcab]

Remember that you have to actually produce someone with standing, and they have to stick around - at least at only arm's length - from the entire process, which will last years. It's going to be hard to find a homeless complainant that could go along for this kind of ride through the end.

I understand that, but the discussion should still be made. No need to have them named on the complaint.




.

 

[press1280]

I’m torn. If it gets mootified, doesn’t that reduce the risk of a rare 2A opportunity being squandered on a very narrow ruling, and leave the other pending cases out in the open? Because those also raise plainly broad 2A issues and seem not as fragile on other ways.

You're kind of right, although there's likely a good reason they took this one and that is that they either had or believed they had the votes to win on the merits of the case. The carry cases would normally fit the bill of what the court looks for (circuit split), but it's much more controversial and they may be worried about squishy Roberts. They took this case to address the scrutiny standard but not make huge waves otherwise.
That being said they do have the CA roster case on hold. That's my bet on what gets taken if this is mooted.

 

[ed bernay]

What I don't understand is why the case didn't challenge the very fact that a law abiding citizen is required to obtain prior written permission and pay $340+ to exercise an enumerated fundamental right in their own home. If they don't receive that permission and get caught, their 2nd amendment right is a crime. You go to a gun store and pass a NICS check. You take your gun home. NYC should not be able to require character references and all of the other nonsense.

 

[Woodnickel]

What I don't understand is why the case didn't challenge the very fact that a law abiding citizen is required to obtain prior written permission and pay $340+ to exercise an enumerated fundamental right in their own home. If they don't receive that permission and get caught, their 2nd amendment right is a crime. You go to a gun store and pass a NICS check. You take your gun home. NYC should not be able to require character references and all of the other nonsense.

This is all of NY State just to own a pistol. The city is just extra difficult.

 

[krucam]

You're kind of right, although there's likely a good reason they took this one and that is that they either had or believed they had the votes to win on the merits of the case. The carry cases would normally fit the bill of what the court looks for (circuit split), but it's much more controversial and they may be worried about squishy Roberts. They took this case to address the scrutiny standard but not make huge waves otherwise.
That being said they do have the CA roster case on hold. That's my bet on what gets taken if this is mooted.

Agreed, Pena is the next one up in the "low hanging fruit" category, which I think is what this Court wants to do.

This Friday's conference (12/6) could be interesting if as many feel, that NYSRPA is going to be mooted...

Josh Blackman (law Prof here in TX) anticipates it being mooted. We'll find this out (if true) on the 12/9 orders and if mooted, he feels one of the other 2A cases could get picked up following the 12/13 conference. It's an interesting read:
https://reason.com/2019/12/03/overv...le-and-pistol-association-v-city-of-new-york/

 

[Defense Rifle]

I could be wrong, but I don't think SCOTUS would have accepted this case and allow it to proceed this far just to rule it moot. They are already aware the law is no longer on the books, but they still on the first day needed to deliberate that out of formality.

I think SCOTUS may rule there is a right for lawful citizens to keep and bear arms outside the home, the scope is to be determined. At least 4 of them for sure believe that. As for Roberts, I think he also favors it, and I hope the other jurist can persuade him if he's not fully on board.

Restrictions on where you can transport and take your firearm is the core issue, it's denying a lawful citizen from exercising a right outside the home.

 

[HaveBlue]

On the “homeless” question... I’ve thought about this one before. As far as keeping a plaintiff on for the ride, why form a free-to-join organization I.e. NYSHPA Homeless Persons Association?

 

[Fedora]

Mootness is ok with me if they grant cert on another case. Better yet, I think that they should grant another case, hold this one, and GVR this one in June. Then have the lower court sort out the mootness mess.

This.

 

[CrawfishStu]

My question is this.
NY enacted a law.
NY dropped the law when they knew it was going to be heard.
NY put another law on the books that says that they won't enact law #1 again.

Without a clear ruling, what is to stop NY from repealing law #2 and putting law #1 back on the books?

 

[MigraineMan]

Without a clear ruling, what is to stop NY from repealing law #2 and putting law #1 back on the books?

That's a rhetorical question, right?

 

[pdsmith505]

My question is this.
NY enacted a law.
NY dropped the law when they knew it was going to be heard.
NY put another law on the books that says that they won't enact law #1 again.

Without a clear ruling, what is to stop NY from repealing law #2 and putting law #1 back on the books?

Notionally, New York State passed a law preventing New York City from reverting the the challenged rules.

New York State is not a party in this case. New York City is not technically free to revert to the challenged rules. This is why the Voluntary Cessation Doctrine doesn't kick in.

In reality, NY State is controlled by NYC.

 

[esqappellate]

Josh Blackman at Volokh thinks its moot, has a different interpretation of the transcript than I do:

https://reason.com/2019/12/03/overv...sociation-v-city-of-new-york/#comment-8033278

I hate to say it, but I tend to agree with Josh, if only because Roberts seemed satisfied with the State's answer on consequences. Hell, the State would say or do anything right now to get rid of the case. I personally think that the State's assurances are total BS, but the Court won't look at it that way.

I don't think this will be a DIG, but will result in an opinion with a vigorous dissent from the mootness ruling by Alito. That is because mootness determination means that the Court will vacate the decision below so as to deprive it of precedential value. That's called a Muningswear order and it is SOP in cases of mootness. I also think that the Court could (and should) grant cert in any of the various gun cases that are being held (my favorite candidate is Rogers, but if I can't get plenary review in a carry case, then I'll settle for Pena). If they do that (grant cert) soon (viz. before mid-January), that will be the best indicator that NYC will be held moot. If cert is granted before mid-January, there is a good chance of a decision by June.

 

[lazarus]

So I am reading everything and understand everything, if it is moot and SCOTUS does grant very to something else.

1) does that mean it’ll be another year before they hear the case? Or if done early enough they could schedule it for this session?

2) what stops any of these other cases from having the state panic and change their laws?

 

[danb]

So I am reading everything and understand everything, if it is moot and SCOTUS does grant very to something else.

1) does that mean it’ll be another year before they hear the case? Or if done early enough they could schedule it for this session?

2) what stops any of these other cases from having the state panic and change their laws?

1: Its early enough that a Dec 10th cert grant can theoretically get arguments on the calendar for this term. Of course, its probably 50-50 as some parties may request and get extensions. This case was granted cert Jan 25th IIRC and scheduled Oct 1. By my count there are 5 unscheduled cases granted and 12 argument days left, so we are getting pretty close to where cases granted now will be heard next term, Oct 2020.

2: nothing at this point.

 

[danb]

And "nothing at this point" is actually a big problem for the court. If CA changes mag limits to say 11 rounds, or NJ tweaks good cause, they can avoid review too. I have no doubt someone can look at the pleadings and think of some clever way to do this in the other cases.

This will start a flood, not just in gun cases, and really **** with the court calendar. You cannot undo a precedent like this. To avoid the flood of gamesmanship Roberts will have to moot the case in such as way as to create a deterrent for anyone else who tries this.

 

[esqappellate]

1: Its early enough that a Dec 10th cert grant can theoretically get arguments on the calendar for this term. Of course, its probably 50-50 as some parties may request and get extensions. This case was granted cert Jan 25th IIRC and scheduled Oct 1. By my count there are 5 unscheduled cases granted and 12 argument days left, so we are getting pretty close to where cases granted now will be heard next term, Oct 2020.

2: nothing at this point.

Agreed on point 1. Generally the cutoff date is mid-January and the Court is free to add additional argument dates and times (or even schedule an afternoon session). But, you are quite right that extension requests could push it into next term even if cert were granted in Dec. There are only two Friday conferences in December, the 6th and the 13th. There are 3 conference dates in January, the 4th, the 11th and the 18th.

2. As to point 2, I doubt that California will abandon its microstamping law at issue in Pena, and NJ (Rogers) and Mass. (Gould) certainly won't become shall issue if cert is granted in those cases. And Congress will not amend Section 922 (Mance) if cert is granted there. In short, the Court will have ample opportunity to get to the merits in one of these cases. The defendants can't moot them all

 

[danb]

When people learn a trick works, they try it again. Mance wont get mooted. However Dem supermajorities control in NJ and CA and they can literally do anything they need to do, in record time, even if its "herculean" in Gorsuch's words. If one of those cases are granted, order pallets of popcorn.

 

[ironpony]

“I’ll take “WTF” for $1000 Alex. “

Thanks for all your input comrades

 

[rambling_one]

?DIG?