US Supreme Court OT 2019

Comm2A

Director Comm2a
Dealer
NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
122
Likes
680
Well it’s October 1st and time once again to kick off a new Supreme Court term. The justices have returned from their European vacations, (or book tours in the case of Justice Gorsuch,) are fit, tanned, well rested and ready once again to get back to their Article III duties.

We’re starting this year’s Supreme Court thread in the Comm2A forum in order to have a cogent and on-point discussion of Second Amendment related issues before the court. This thread will be strictly moderated to stay on-topic and relevant. Posts hoping for the early death or justices, irrelevant thread drift, etc. will be ‘pruned’.

Comm2A will (hopefully) be launching a new website later this month that will include a comprehensive status board of potential Second Amendment and gun related cases that are before the court or have the potential to be before the court. We’ll update this post and thread when the new website goes live.

October Term 2019 (OT 2019 for short) is shaping up to be the most important term for the much ‘disfavored Second Amendment since Heller was handed down in 2008. The court has already granted cert in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. NYC and scheduled argument on December 2nd. This may change. Later today in their back-to-work ‘long’ conference, the justices will decide if the case is now moot given that the city and state have rescinded the offending regulation.

There are at least four Second Amendment holdover petitions from OT2018:


These petitions are all unusual in that they were distributed for conference but the justice took no action and the petitions were NOT relisted. Speculation is that the court may act on them after issuing a decision in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. NYC.

Additionally, several more petitions were filed while the justices were sunning themselves on the Mediterranean (or signing books):

  • Ciolek v. NJ – pro se New Jersey carry case from state court. Distributed for today’s ‘long’ conference.
  • Lopez v Massachusetts - Due process burden shifting case. Distributed for conference on October 11th.
  • Cheeseman v. Polillo - New Jersey Carry case
  • Worman v. Healey – Comm2A’s challenge to the Massachusetts assault weapons ban
  • Malpasso v. Pallozzi – Maryland carry case – Former Solicitor General Paul Clement filed the petition ensuring that the justice will take a close look at this petition for acting.

Apart from the Second Amendment, OT 2019 may see the justices take a good hard look at the administrative state and qualified immunity. Several of the justices have signaled their dissatisfaction with the state of the law in these two areas.

Fun Fact: The going signing bonus for Supreme Court clerks once they’ve completed their service is $400,000. That’s just the signing bonus. And, they’re barred from any Supreme Court for two years once their clerkship ends. Nice gig if you can get it.

Stay tuned…..
 
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
13,503
Likes
5,772
well, seems we'll see of the courts stand up for the constitution, the bill of rights and citizen's rights or a politicians right to inflict oppression and tyranny.
 

CatSnoutSoup

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 9, 2015
Messages
2,964
Likes
5,377
Location
Westgardminsterham MA
Do any of these have the potential to make "shall issue" the law of the land?

Is Worman v. Healey unique among the others as the only one that touches upon rifle ownership (AWB)?

:emoji_tiger:
 

mlaboss

NES Member
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Joined
May 13, 2011
Messages
4,119
Likes
1,668
I'm especially excited about Rogers v. Grewal and Gould v. Lipson. I think there is a good chance those cases will be granted cert, Rogers will be decided in favor of the plaintiffs, and Gould will be vacated and remanded back to the 1st circuit to be re-decided in light of SCOTUS' new guidance on how carry cases should be decided. The fact that carry licenses are subject to the whims of public officials who are essentially unaccountable for their decisions is absurd, and this is an opportunity for SCOTUS to set things right.
 

Fritz the Cat

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Aug 11, 2018
Messages
2,381
Likes
2,797
Location
South Berkshire County
I heard an interesting viewpoint from CATO today remarking that most judges, like 9 out of 10, come come up through the ranks of the DA system. When a judge has spent the early portion of his career looking for ways to prosecute every person that is brought before him/her, it is bound to leave an impression on the psyche. Does that judge also have a subconscious favoritism for the DA being formerly in that position? When being elevated to higher courts, how many of their biases come along for the ride esp in relation to 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendment cases?
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
548
Likes
473
Location
Merrimack Valley
I heard an interesting viewpoint from CATO today remarking that most judges, like 9 out of 10, come come up through the ranks of the DA system. When a judge has spent the early portion of his career looking for ways to prosecute every person that is brought before him/her, it is bound to leave an impression on the psyche. Does that judge also have a subconscious favoritism for the DA being formerly in that position? When being elevated to higher courts, how many of their biases come along for the ride esp in relation to 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendment cases?
That's probably true, but probably also isn't the case at the federal appellate level, which is where most of the rules are set. On SCOTUS for example I believe only Alito, Sotomayor, and Gorsuch are former prosecutors.
 

PennyPincher

NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Aug 27, 2007
Messages
11,079
Likes
3,466
Location
Texas
That's probably true, but probably also isn't the case at the federal appellate level, which is where most of the rules are set. On SCOTUS for example I believe only Alito, Sotomayor, and Gorsuch are former prosecutors.
it was actually exactly about the "road" to the federal appellate bench.
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
20,243
Likes
8,460
Location
NH (CT Escapee)
I'd love to see a decision on this case: Gould v. Lipson
It seems to me that if the court agreed with striking down the license in this manner, it would precipitate the need to repeal all FFLs as well. Because if 2A is a right and the license is an infringement (which it is because you cannot license free speech) the government cannot grant that to individuals and in my view still have FFLs be legal. The FFL is in fact the same exact thing, if not worse restriction than MA licensing. FFLs have far more requirements placed on the exercising of a right. Again you can't tax free speech or have poll taxes, so how would Form stamps or FFLs be legal if MA licensing scheme is not?

This kind of rabbit hole is exactly why I think SCOTUS will just sit in the painted corner they placed themselves in by refusing to strike down GCA '34 and allowing the camel's nose under the tent which led to the state we now find ourselves in.
 

VetteGirlMA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
2,787
Likes
2,596
Location
western mass
It seems to me that if the court agreed with striking down the license in this manner, it would precipitate the need to repeal all FFLs as well. Because if 2A is a right and the license is an infringement (which it is because you cannot license free speech) the government cannot grant that to individuals and in my view still have FFLs be legal. The FFL is in fact the same exact thing, if not worse restriction than MA licensing. FFLs have far more requirements placed on the exercising of a right. Again you can't tax free speech or have poll taxes, so how would Form stamps or FFLs be legal if MA licensing scheme is not?
The key issue is having to define a 'need' in order to exercise a right. It's not really about questioning licensing per se, it's more of the Person X lives at address A and can get an unrestricted LTC meanwhile person Y who just so happens to live across the street from person X BUT lives in a different city and because of the address in a different town is unable to get an unrestricted LTC, not because of their past or any other articulable reason. Their only crime is living at the wrong address. I know that Comm2A is considering this a 2A case but to me it feels like more of a 14th amendment case. If 2 people X and Y have criminal free backgrounds and apply for a gun license, the state should treat X and Y equally.
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
20,243
Likes
8,460
Location
NH (CT Escapee)
I didn't think that is a good case to bring and decide in the way you describe because it would de facto then support licensing as long as it was a consistent reasoning.

If you did address it from the "need" perspective and not the equality perspective, there is no need for a license to exercise a right. Because again if there was, then free speech could be licensed the same way.

The argument needs to be 2A is the same as 1A. Any law is an infringement. To attack it any other way is to capitulate that licensing will remain the norm. Make the liberal states need to bring an argument that counters the fact that 2/3rd of US states do not require a license to own or carry a firearm in some way and the ones that do are in fact the HIGHER crime states.
 

Knuckle Dragger

NES Member
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,113
Likes
3,410
Location
My forest stronghold
The argument needs to be 2A is the same as 1A. Any law is an infringement. To attack it any other way is to capitulate that licensing will remain the norm. Make the liberal states need to bring an argument that counters the fact that 2/3rd of US states do not require a license to own or carry a firearm in some way and the ones that do are in fact the HIGHER crime states.
You're making the argument for across the board strict scrutiny. That will never fly for at least a few reasons. First, the three tiers of scrutiny paradigm is falling out of favor with some of the conservative justices. I think it's unlikely that they'd use the Second Amendment to breath new life into it. Getting away from this paradigm also means they don't have to directly address the faux-intermediate scrutiny framework employed by lower courts.

More to the point, virtually every gun control law fails under strict scrutiny. Heller was clear that the Second Amendment was subject reasonable long standing regulation. They are not going to undo Heller in that way. Under strict scrutiny, felon-in-possession laws would fail. While I think that more and more non-violent felons will continue to get their rights back, there's no way that a court with Alito and Roberts is going to wholesale gut the current set of prohibitions.
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
20,243
Likes
8,460
Location
NH (CT Escapee)
This is exactly my point. Because they know strict scrutiny is exactly what should apply to an individual right. Because 2A was not incorporated until Heller, they now have nowhere to go with deciding these cases that is compatible with all the laws that now exist that should never have been allowed.

At best an individual gets a decision in their favor with an extremely cryptic decision that doesn't firmly define what is and is not allowed. This results in all other existing laws remaining and no country wide victory for rights.

My feeling is they even want to avoid the above becuase again they are smart enough to realize Heller is in direct conflict with nearly every law. Acknowledging in Heller there is a long history if laws governing firearms does not address whether those laws are valid and survive compatibility with a fully incorporated natural right protected by the constitution.

Again, you could not pass a law for a shall issue free speech license. It would be struck down. As should any firearm law.
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
31   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,823
Likes
2,274
I'm especially excited about Rogers v. Grewal and Gould v. Lipson. I think there is a good chance those cases will be granted cert, Rogers will be decided in favor of the plaintiffs, and Gould will be vacated and remanded back to the 1st circuit to be re-decided in light of SCOTUS' new guidance on how carry cases should be decided. The fact that carry licenses are subject to the whims of public officials who are essentially unaccountable for their decisions is absurd, and this is an opportunity for SCOTUS to set things right.
That all depends on whether or not they moot NYSRPA. If they don't, and it's not a fait accompli they will, then Rogers will get a remand. But I agree that Gould is likely the GVR of the two, NJ has clearer standards/policies than MA. MA gun law has been designed based off of the worst of the worst of Jim Crow. They have done everything they can, since the early 1900s, to make this law very hard to challenge based on what the south did with Jim Crow.
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
31   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,823
Likes
2,274
Was SCOTUS supposed to rule today on whether NYC mooted their own handgun transport law?
Maybe. Monday will see the release of something related to that case, but possibly not a full published decision (which means if they decided, there may be a decision and a dissent and will take time to write) just yet.
 

Knuckle Dragger

NES Member
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,113
Likes
3,410
Location
My forest stronghold
This is exactly my point. Because they know strict scrutiny is exactly what should apply to an individual right. Because 2A was not incorporated until Heller, they now have nowhere to go with deciding these cases that is compatible with all the laws that now exist that should never have been allowed.
I think you mean that the Second Amendment wasn't recognized as protecting an individual right until Heller. It was McDonald in 2010 that incorporated the Heller holding against the states.

Was SCOTUS supposed to rule today on whether NYC mooted their own handgun transport law?
An order's list from yesterday's conference hasn't been issued. It may not come out until Monday. It will be long.
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
20,243
Likes
8,460
Location
NH (CT Escapee)
I think you mean that the Second Amendment wasn't recognized as protecting an individual right until Heller. It was McDonald in 2010 that incorporated the Heller holding against the states.

An order's list from yesterday's conference hasn't been issued. It may not come out until Monday. It will be long.
Correct. My mistake conflating the two.
 

67ray

NES Member
Rating - 100%
167   0   0
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
1,775
Likes
829
It seems to me that if the court agreed with striking down the license in this manner, it would precipitate the need to repeal all FFLs as well. Because if 2A is a right and the license is an infringement (which it is because you cannot license free speech) the government cannot grant that to individuals and in my view still have FFLs be legal. The FFL is in fact the same exact thing, if not worse restriction than MA licensing. FFLs have far more requirements placed on the exercising of a right. Again you can't tax free speech or have poll taxes, so how would Form stamps or FFLs be legal if MA licensing scheme is not?

This kind of rabbit hole is exactly why I think SCOTUS will just sit in the painted corner they placed themselves in by refusing to strike down GCA '34 and allowing the camel's nose under the tent which led to the state we now find ourselves in.
No, the Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to commerce. FFL01 don't allow one to carry concealed they are to engage in the business of buying and selling firearms. The SCOTUS will not be constrained by this.
 

milktree

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
4,369
Likes
1,749
No, the Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to commerce. FFL01 don't allow one to carry concealed they are to engage in the business of buying and selling firearms. The SCOTUS will not be constrained by this.
There have been a bunch of court cases about this, the phrase is “right to earn an honest living”, and generally you do have that right.

The Institute for Justice has been doing a lot of litigation on this issue.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 18, 2019
Messages
29
Likes
9
Location
The 413
That all depends on whether or not they moot NYSRPA. If they don't, and it's not a fait accompli they will, then Rogers will get a remand. But I agree that Gould is likely the GVR of the two, NJ has clearer standards/policies than MA. MA gun law has been designed based off of the worst of the worst of Jim Crow. They have done everything they can, since the early 1900s, to make this law very hard to challenge based on what the south did with Jim Crow.
Sorry, what's "GVR"?
 

Knuckle Dragger

NES Member
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,113
Likes
3,410
Location
My forest stronghold
Nerd Alert:

Big change announced at the court today. The justices have decided to give lawyers a full two minutes of uninterrupted oral argument before jumping in with their questions. (Scalia is rolling over in his grave). Lawyers scheduled for next week's arguments are probably re-working their arguments knowing that they'll actually have to go for two minutes before the inquisition begins!

The Court generally will not question lead counsel for petitioners (or appellants) and respondents (or appellees) during the first two minutes of argument. The white light on the lectern will illuminate briefly at the end of this period to signal the start of questioning. Where argument is divided and counsel represents an amicus or an additional party, the white light will illuminate after one minute.
 

Knuckle Dragger

NES Member
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,113
Likes
3,410
Location
My forest stronghold
Top Bottom