Supreme Court, New York gun retailers

The Supreme Court will wait until New York actually enacts the law and it is brought to the court.
Jump over to the mega thread on the topic
Scotus didn't refuse to hear the case, just the opposite.
Sotomayor refused to vacate the 2nd's stay of a district court's injunction..
If that seems overly complex, it's because it is.

2nd circuit placed the stay with no reasoning contrary to custom.
Alito, with Thomas concurring, stated he did not know why Sotomayor did not hear the case but assumed it was because correctly, she was giving time for the 2nd to release it's opinion on the issuance of the stay.
He also made it clear that if the 2nd doesn't act both timely and pursuant to Bruen that the plaintiffs should return to SCOTUS for relief.

That's the whole thing in a nutshell.
SCOTUS is giving NY and the 2nd Circuit just enough rope before they start kicking chairs
This is a different case than the other challenge. That one is further along. No need to leapfrog this one. And yes, the lower courts get to weigh in first.

IANAL, though.
I've read several different sources and don't see anything about taking it up later. Can you elaborate?

Others did a good job answering. This is an interlocutory appeal, SCOTUS rarely gets involved early. SCOTUS is an appeals court, they let the district court build a record and appeals courts sort through the issues as well, then they may take a case. The NY AG, etc putting out press releases and celebrating is foolish. If then2nd circuit doesn’t toss most of these NY laws, SCOTUS will.
LeTittia is all happy. The Supremes are doling out some serious power in these moves. They ship 3 cases back to be re-decided. Then they stay out of the way. What they're saying is, "hey - there is a process and a respect for rule of law. We have it. You better have it. Knock off this crap where you force us to do work we shouldn't have to do." While somewhat unusual, it would not be out of line to grant the stay and say, "Did you people even READ what we wrote??" They didn't. They stayed in their lane.

It's awesome. Well, it sucks for the lack of injunction. But it shows the courts that they should STFU and let the lower courts do their work FIRST. Enough of this injunctions-of-injunctions crap.
At some point though the SCOTUS will need to stop playing please pass the grey poupon with these lower courts who are consistently ignoring the law and decided cases and put the hammer down on them. Otherwise this will never end.

These are only stays of TROs of issues the courts haven’t addressed post bruen. The district court issued a TRO, the 2nd strayed it without comment and will hold a hearing on it. These are early stages of unheard cases, SCOTUS almost never gets involved this early. The statement from Alito, signed by Thomas basically said we’re giving you a bit of time to address this, if you don’t the plaintiffs can return to SCOTUS.
But what hte SC is saying is "Hey Appeals courts - if a TRO is granted on a new law, you should let it slide and work it's way to you. If it's denied and you have good cause to instate it, instate it. It isn't like the 'old' way is somehow a major change to the status quo."

Appeals courts are far too fast in reversing TRO's they feel should be shot down. That's not the point. Did the lower court make an error??? Like a real one, not one you have in your lower filing cabinet drawer to pull out every time you want to reverse something.

This CAN work against us. Get a good law, get it TRO'd until it's decided if it's kosher. I'm actually OK with that as well. I'm appreciating the SC trying to bring order back into the Judiciary.
Standard deal -

Those who like the refusal to hear the case claim that SCOTUS "ruled" on the case
Those that don't like the refusal point out that SCOTUS made no rulings on the merits of the case; the media and most readers ignore this.

Big propaganda win for the other side.
I believe the cases have been scheduled for a hearing in the next month or so.
Both parties need to be given time to prepare new briefs to the court in light of Bruen.
The court can't just re-examine the fact presented since each side will argue very differently now.
Top Bottom