U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- The Supreme Court has re-listed the ten Second Amendment cases it has previously distributed for conference. From scotusblog.com:
This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from the justices’ private conference last week. The justices did not add any new cases to their argument calendar for next term. Perhaps most significantly, they did not act at all on the 10 gun rights cases that they had considered for a second time at last week’s conference.
The gun rights cases have all been on hold, some for over a year, presumably until the court issued its decision in the challenge to New York City’s ban on the transport of handguns outside the city. The justices dismissed that case as moot at the end of April, and a few hours later the court had distributed the 10 petitions for consideration at the justices’ May 1 conference. The justices normally only grant review after they have considered a petition at two consecutive conferences, so it was no surprise that they did not act on the petitions when they issued orders on May 4. There’s no way to know whether the justices are still trying to choose among the petitions, have not yet decided what to do or have some other reason for waiting to act on the petitions.
Ten Second Amendment cases have been re-listed for the Supreme Court conference to be held Friday, 15 May, 2020. As noted in the SCOTUSBLOG post above, a writ of certiorari is usually not granted until a case has been heard at conference at least twice. The ten Second Amendment cases have now been to conference at least three times each. Perhaps, because of the number of cases, the Supreme Court Justices are taking more time on this issue.
No orders for any of the Second Amendment cases were issued as of Monday, 18 May.
It is noted in each case whether the Department of Justice has submitted a brief in the case.
The cases are shown in the list below. The link on the name of the case is to the Supreme Court case history and assignment to the conference. The second link is to documents showing the particulars of the case. The ten cases are:
Mance v. Barr
The DOJ has filed a brief claiming the law is Constitutional.
A challange to the ban on out of state handgun purchases in the 5th Circuit (Texas).
Rogers v. Grewal
A challenge to the NJ may issue carry permit scheme in the 3rd Circuit.
The DOJ has not filed a brief in this case.
Pena v. Horan
A challenge to the microstamping and restrictive “approved” handgun roster in California in the 9th Circuit.
The DOJ has not filed a brief in this case.
Gould v. Lipson
A challenge to the restrictive Massachusetts may issue ownership and carry permit scheme in the 1st circuit.
The DOJ has not filed a brief in this case.
Cheeseman v. Polillo
A challenge to the NJ may issue carry permit scheme in the 3rd Circuit.
The DOJ has not filed a brief in this case.
Ciolek v. New Jersey
A challenge to the NJ may issue carry permit scheme in the 3rd Circuit.
The DOJ has not filed a brief in this case.
A challenge to a ban on common firearms described as “assault weapons” and magazines with capacity of more than 10 rounds in the 1st Circuit.
The DOJ has not filed a brief in this case.
An amicus brief was filed by 94 members of Congress, asking the Court to uphold the Second Amendment and to strike down the law as unconstitutional.
Malpasso v. Pallozzi
A challenge to the Maryland extreme may issue carry permit scheme in the 4th Circuit.
The DOJ has not filed a brief in this case.
Culp v. Raoul
A challenge to the Illinois refusal to issue carry permits to residents of some states, in the 7th Circuit.
The DOJ has not filed a brief in this case.
Wilson v. Cook County
A challenge to a ban on common firearms described as “assault weapons” and magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rds in Cook County, Illinois, in the 7th Circuit.
The DOJ has not filed a brief in this case.
The ten cases above were appealed to the Supreme Court from November of 2018 through November of 2019. Some of them have been held for conference, waiting on the resolution of the New York Rifle and Pistol case, which has now been ruled moot by the Supreme Court.
Six of the ten cases are about permits to carry. Two are about bans on widely owned and popular firearms, variously defined as “assault weapons”. One is about federal restrictions on the purchase of handguns across state lines, the other about numerous and prohibitive restrictions on what handguns may be purchased in California.
In addition to the ten cases above, the Supreme Court has asked the City of San Jose to submit a brief in Rodriquez v. City of San Jose. This is not due until June 22, 2020.
No one knows how many of the ten cases will be granted a writ of certiorari, if any. Several of the cases could be lumped together.
The Supreme Court has scheduled a conference each week until the end of June. There is an opportunity for the Court to issue orders after each conference. There is a reasonable possibility the Court will decide to take one, several, or all of the Second Amendment cases before the end of the term.
However, oral arguments would not be heard until next fall, possibly after the election.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30-year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
Don’t hold your breath. Who decides what, where and when Anti-Constitution cases could be heard? Lower courts screw the 2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court just watches. The judicial branch of the United States has become as ineffective as congress.
Michael J: The Courts are doing the same thing as Congress that is effective to their ends.
The 2A and Amendments are easy to read and comprehend, basically NONE of this crap is needed IF THE FEDS made the States FOLLOW the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.There should be NO LAWSUITS needed. Weapons (as they come from manufacturers) and ARE IN COMMON USE, like AR Clones, and AK Clones, are just that IN COMMON USE,WHY hear a lawsuit about something that is a FORGONE conclusion.( I would say 20+ million would qualify as Common use,as they are the #1 Sporting/self defense weapons in use today.) Keep your damned hands off our only weapons to deter Tyranny, WHICH… Read more »
I am certainly not the most competent legal expert out there, and not a lawyer of any kind. So given that, I of course have an opinion based on my own reading of the wind and of political gamesmanship that goes on, especially when it comes to the 2nd amendment. Looking over the list of possible cases for a writ of certiorari, one stands out that I think would call for a closer look by the SCOTUS, that they would all be willing to hear. That is the case of Pena v Horan. The first reason is because of the… Read more »
@USA – Correction. President facing an uncertain election, requiring consent from a hostile senate (dominated by opposing party) cannot appoint a S. Ct. Justice. Given hostilities and partisanship in senate, coupled with republican control and possible loss of seats, I suspect that if Ginsberg leaves before new years Trump would easily secure confirmation of a replacement if November election has gone badly. Between now and the election, Republican Senators will be carefully to not appear excessively partisan so as to avoid firing up democrats ahead of the election.
@Finnkiy, Yes, as a matter of practicality. As to Ruthy, I hope that she retires so that I do not have to cheer on … cancer.
@USA, No, the House has no say in the matter. The PotUS appoints, as he sees fit, with the “advice and consent” of the Senate.
@USA, No.