US Supreme Court OT 2019

[Knuckle Dragger]

Were we due for an update yesteday?

No, I don't think so.

 

[Waher]

Follow this Twitter account if you want brief national updates on legislature and lawsuits:

Rob (@2Aupdates) | Twitter

The latest Tweets from Rob (@2Aupdates). Updates on lawsuits, bills, orgs, judges, and more. Creator of the Gun Case Tracker ⬇️

twitter.com

 

[Rocky Mosasaurus]

Would you guys say the Worman v. Healey case would be heard before the presidential election or not until after?

 

[hv55maxx]

No, I don't think so.

I thought it remembered hearing something due on 2/10, but the recess lasts until 2/21, so apparently i just need more coffee.

 

[BigGreen2000]

Nothing yet on NYC?

 

[Boston4567]

Nothing yet on NYC?

Nope, it's still a steaming garbage heap of a city run by an avowed Communist.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

Wilson v. Cook County, Ill
Docket for 19-704

 

[hv55maxx]

Wilson v. Cook County, Ill
Docket for 19-704

so distributed for conference, but does not mean granted cert correct?

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

so distributed for conference, but does not mean granted cert correct?

Correct.

Jan 02 2020 Brief amicus curiae of Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc. filed.

 

[swatgig]

so distributed for conference, but does not mean granted cert correct?

It means they've assembled all the pieces, and now the Supremes will think about it.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

I really like the wording that Comm2A used in the Amicus brief. It was definitely well thought out.

 

[knucklehead]

That was great read, good job Comm2A!

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I really like the wording that Comm2A used in the Amicus brief. It was definitely well thought out.

That was great read, good job Comm2A!

We (Comm2A) simply re-hashed what we did for this case years ago when it was in the state court system. We think we have a compelling perspective on this issue and we're trying to get it in front of the courts.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Today's Order Lists had nothing new or remarkable. However, there were three more Rehaif related GVRs, a trend that's good to see. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022420zor_mjo1.pdf

 

[BigGreen2000]

Just read the Amicus Brief—nice job Comm 2A! Interesting twist that Atty. Healey based the 2016 “enforcement notice” on copyright and patent-infringement law, i.e making it as intentionally vague and pliable as possible!

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Cert denied in Guedes. Dissent by Gorsuch. Read it here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/030220zor_l5gm.pdf (Page 10)

Chevron’s application in this case may be doubtful for other reasons too. The agency used to tell everyone that bump stocks don’t qualify as “machineguns.” Now it saysthe opposite. The law hasn’t changed, only an agency’s interpretation of it. And these days it sometimes seems agen-cies change their statutory interpretations almost as oftenas elections change administrations.

 

[Boston4567]

Cert denied in Guedes. Dissent by Gorsuch. Read it here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/030220zor_l5gm.pdf (Page 10)

Looks like it's a "statement" rather than a dissent. He agrees it's not ripe for SCOTUS review as an interlocutory petition, but wanted to send a message to lower courts that they should rethink their approach.

 

[SgtHal75]

Looks like it's a "statement" rather than a dissent. He agrees it's not ripe for SCOTUS review as an interlocutory petition, but wanted to send a message to lower courts that they should rethink their approach.

Is this good or bad?

 

[Goliathan]

Is this good or bad?

They didn't cram it down the lowers courts' throats, so it's not great. Hopefully they're just waiting for another, stronger, case to come up. Hopefully.

The agency used to tell everyone that bump stocks don’t qualify as “machine guns.” Now it says the opposite. The law hasn’t changed, only an agency’s interpretation of it. And these days it sometimes seems agencies change their statutory interpretations almost as often as elections change administrations. How, in all this, can ordinary citizens be expected to keep up—required not only to conform their conduct to the fairest reading of the law they might expect from a neutral judge, but forced to guess whether the statute will be declared ambiguous; to guessagain whether the agency’s initial interpretation of the law will be declared “reasonable”; and to guess again whether a later and opposing agency interpretation will also be held “reasonable”? And why should courts, charged with the independent and neutral interpretation of the laws Congress has enacted, defer to such bureaucratic pirouetting?

Despite these concerns, I agree with my colleagues that the interlocutory petition before us does not merit review.The errors apparent in this preliminary ruling might yet be corrected before final judgment. Further, other courts of appeals are actively considering challenges to the same regulation. Before deciding whether to weigh in, we would benefit from hearing their considered judgments—provided, of course, that they are not afflicted with the sameproblems. But waiting should not be mistaken for lack of concern.

 

[SgtHal75]

They didn't cram it down the lowers courts' throats, so it's bad.

So much for Gorsuch I guess....I’ll read the dissent after work today.

 

[Goliathan]

So much for Gorsuch I guess....I’ll read the dissent after work today.

Well, I reserve judgment on calling foul on him for this one. This interlocutory case has some issues and I'm hoping this is just a matter of waiting for one of the other, better cases to wend its way up to them. Ruling on a crummy case can be pretty bad, too.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

“The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly.”--Neil Gorsuch

 

[Fritz the Cat]

“The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly.”--Neil Gorsuch

I'm not liking the addition of "lightly"

 

[DispositionMatrix]

View: https://twitter.com/guntruth/status/1234543909910597633?s=20

The Truth About Guns
@guntruth
Read Justice Gorsuch's comments re the denial of cert in the Guedes bump stock ban appeal. The appeal was based on Chevron deference, NOT the merits of the ban.

As Gorsuch points out, the ban itself is still being argued in other cases. Hang in there.

 

[Dench]

So much for Gorsuch I guess....I’ll read the dissent after work today.

It's the typical mindless bureaucracy that any JD would have a raging boner while reading.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

How coronavirus could change the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has closed its doors to the public until "further notice" as the impact of the coronavirus pandemic ripples across the country, raising questions about how the justices will handle the next set of oral arguments scheduled to begin March 23.

www.cnn.com

Holding oral arguments during the coronavirus pandemic (Updated) - SCOTUSblog

Like other government institutions, the Supreme Court is figuring out how to function during the coronavirus pandemic. So far, it has continued its normal business, while closing the Supreme Court building to public visitors. It hasn’t yet needed to do more, because the justices held their last publ

www.scotusblog.com

 

[NewGuyRay]

So, with scheduled arguments in cases delayed, is there any chance the court will move up completing decisions on cases heard last fall and announce the decisions prior to June?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

So, with scheduled arguments in cases delayed, is there any chance the court will move up completing decisions on cases heard last fall and announce the decisions prior to June?

Who knows? From a work management perspective, that makes sense. But the machinations of the court are hardly geared towards being efficient.

 

[NewGuyRay]

"In any event, the court emphasized, it “will continue to proceed with the resolution of all cases” that have already been argued this term. The justices are expected to issue orders from today’s conference online on Monday morning at 9:30 a.m., followed by opinions in argued cases at 10 a.m. "

April argument session postponed - SCOTUSblog

Five days after President Donald Trump announced that federal guidance on social distancing would remain in effect until April 30, the Supreme Court announced that its April argument session, which had been scheduled to begin on April 20 and run through April 29, would be postponed. Today’s notice f

www.scotusblog.com

A decision in NYSRPA v. City of New York would help pass the quarantine time a little more easily. With the country's attention focussed on COVID-19, it would be a perfect time to drop a "controversial" decision in this case. It would be pretty hard for the general public to give a crap about a gun control paradigm-shifting decision.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

April argument session postponed - SCOTUSblog

Five days after President Donald Trump announced that federal guidance on social distancing would remain in effect until April 30, the Supreme Court announced that its April argument session, which had been scheduled to begin on April 20 and run through April 29, would be postponed. Today’s notice f

www.scotusblog.com

Yeah they probably figured Ginsburg is so frail she could become infected through video conferencing.