For the sake of continuity, this really should have been added to the existing
Binderup thread.
This isn't surprising at all given that this is the
certiorari stage. It's highly unusual for the government to NOT defend it's laws and you typically only see it with very public and political issues. A good example is when the Obama administration failed to defend DOMA. And, at this point, the government isn't actually defending the law, they're just trying to keep SCOTUS from taking the case. We'll get a better sense of where the Session DOJ and Trump administration stand if SCOTUS actually grants cert. and they actively try to defend that law. But, I do believe they'll continue to defend it.
Although these are not the best plaintiffs, this is the disturbing part: "Although the two men pleaded guilty to misdemeanors, their crimes could have been punished by more than a year in jail".
No, actually Binderup is a very good plaintiff. If you want to challenge these types of prohibitions you're not going to be able to do it with an Eagle Scout. By definition your plaintiffs are going to be from the scratch and dent crowd.
Is this normal for the WH to be lobbying the SCOTUS? I remember the uproar when Obama admonished the SCOTUS on some topic. I thought the SCOTUS was supposed to be such a separate branch of the .gov that they are almost isolated. They don't talk to or lobby Congress or the WH and vise versa.
This isn't lobbying. The federal government, represented by the Attorney General and the President are parties to this law suit. During the
certiorari stage, the direct parties (here Binderup and the Federal Government) try to convince the court to take the case and grant cert. or not. Others, who are not direct parties to the case also weigh in trying to sway the court one way or the other by filing
amici briefs. Comm2A has filed a number of these with the Supreme Court over the years, both on our own are in concert with other state organizations.
If SCOTUS grants cert., this cycle starts all over again with the direct parties and
amici all filing a new set of briefs.
As others have pointed out, this is a critical issue for Massachusetts because of the Commonwealth's longstanding efforts to exclude as many people as possible from the Second Amendment. Even now, we're waiting on the First Circuit for a decision in a very similar case -
Morin v. Leahy.