What Supreme Court’s Order To NY Sate In Antonyuk vs Nigrelli Really Means

Opinion

Supreme Court 2nd Second Amendment iStock-Morrison1977 491952898
Supreme Court 2nd Second Amendment iStock-Morrison1977

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Arbalest Quarrel anticipated the U.S. Supreme would respond quickly to the New York State concealed handgun carry license holders’ Application for Relief from the Second Circuit’s lifting of the Stay on the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction (“PI”).

This was evident from the odd “request” issued by Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor on December 27, 2022, giving the Hochul Government four days to respond to the Plaintiffs’ “Application for Relief.”

  • Realizing that the Court expected a response, the New York Government complied, filing its Response on January 5, 2023.
  • The Plaintiffs filed their reply to the Government’s Response on January 11, 2023.
  • The High Court issued a terse order on January 11, 2023, denying Plaintiffs’ Application to vacate the stay on the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction.

This Order allows the Hochul Government to enforce the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) while the Second Circuit reviews the substantive merits of the Plaintiffs’ challenge.

As pointed out by Gun Owners of America in an AmmoLand News article posted on January 11, 2022, Justice Samuel Alito made clear to both the Government and the Second Circuit that the Court is not to dawdle.

Justice Clarence Thomas joined Alito on this, so we should understand that Alito’s remarks are also those of Thomas.

Alito and Thomas understood that the High Court’s refusal to lift the stay on the Plaintiffs’ PI gives Hochul and the Legislature in Albany breathing space. The Government can enforce the CCIA while the Second Circuit reviews the substantive merits of the Plaintiffs’ handgun licensees’ challenge.

Time is on their side, and the Government has everything to gain by drawing this case out for months if it can. And the Second Circuit would make sure this happens, as it is sympathetic to the Hochul Government’s desire to constrain the exercise of the right to armed self-defense outside the confines of one’s home or place of business. That is the salient purpose of Hochul’s CCIA.

Justices Alito and Thomas know this, too, and will have none of it.

Moreover, the Government’s response to the Plaintiffs’ action for relief is so flawed we were surprised that the High Court didn’t reverse the Second Circuit. That it didn’t do so but kept the stay of the PI in place should be construed as nothing more than a sop, an unwarranted gift given to the Second Circuit from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Because of those obvious flaws, Alito and Thomas want the Second Circuit and the Nation to know they would have handled this matter differently.

These Justices would have reversed the Second Circuit, lifting the stay of the PI, and thereby suspending the operation of the CCIA, during the pendency of the Second Circuit’s review of the merits of the case.

Let us unpack Associate Justice Alito’s remarks.

Justice Alito chose his words carefully. Justice Thomas, having joined him, is in complete agreement with those remarks:

“I understand the Court’s denial today to reflect respect for the Second Circuit’s procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case. Applicants should not be deterred by this Order from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal.”

This is a warning, and in no uncertain terms, delivered to the Hochul Government and the Second Circuit.

Alito gave this warning twice—the second time asserting:

“In parallel cases presenting related issues, the Second Circuit has likewise issued unreasoned summary stay orders, but in those cases it has ordered expedited briefing.”

This is a not-so-subtle message meant to coax the Second Circuit into handling Antonyuk II as it has handled “parallel cases,” that is to say, do it quickly.

But that isn’t all. Justice Alito also said this:

“The New York law at issue in this application presents novel and serious questions under both the First and the Second Amendments. The District Court found, in a thorough opinion, that the applicants were likely to succeed on a number of their claims, and it issued a preliminary injunction as to twelve provisions of the challenged law. . . .”

By affirming the Second Circuit’s decision, lifting the stay on the PI, and thereby allowing Hochul to enforce the CCIA, except for a couple of provisions, Justice Alito has subtly conveyed how this case is fated to turn out.

As the Second Circuit reviews the substantive merits of the case, it matters not how the Second Court ultimately rules, because regardless of how it rules, the Hochul Government will lose.

The CCIA will be struck down. For, if the Second Circuit doesn’t strike down this blatantly unconstitutional, illegal Government Anti-Second Amendment measure, the U.S. Supreme Court will do so.

Thus, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit faces a classic dilemma, a Hobbesian Trap from which it cannot extricate itself.

There are two Scenarios.

SCENARIO ONE

The Second Circuit ultimately rules in favor of the Government. The Court strikes down the PI and dismisses Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli (Antonyuk II) with prejudice.

Plaintiffs will immediately file their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. That is a dead certainty.

And the High Court will take the case up for review. That, too, is a dead certainty. The Court must accept the Writ of Certiorari. Why is that?

If the U.S. Supreme Court demurs from hearing the case, it defeats the Second Amendment and weakens its prior holdings, Heller, McDonald, and Bruen. It makes a mockery of itself—slits its own throat, and undermines the authority of the High Court, this Third Branch of Government. Obviously, it won’t do that.

The CCIA is legally and logically inconsistent with the Second Amendment and an insult to the High Court’s rulings in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen.

An adverse decision on Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli (Antonyuk II) weakens the three prior seminal Second Amendment cases.

So, the High Court must take the case up on appeal and must find in favor of the Plaintiffs.

SCENARIO TWO

The Second Circuit decides to rule in favor of the Plaintiffs, finding the CCIA in conflict with the Second Amendment and with U.S. Supreme Court precedent. What happens, then? What will the Hochul Government do? In a word, ‘Nothing!’ Certainly nothing that would salvage the CCIA.

The Hochul Government cannot obtain relief unless it seeks relief from the High Court. But Hochul won’t do that. She won’t appeal an adverse ruling of the Second Circuit. The Court would never give her the relief she seeks. It would give her the opposite of what she wants.

Would Hochul fail to comply?

Hochul failed to comply once, stirring up a hornet’s nest. If she fails a second time to comply with Federal Court rulings, she admits the tyranny of the New York Government and invites an uprising.

For her troubles, Hochul hasn’t strengthened the New York State handgun licensing edifice. She has instead severely weakened the entire edifice. She has created a fault line that cannot be closed, one that threatens to topple the State’s 113-year-old Sullivan Act.

The best the Hochul Government can hope for here is simply to buy time. And it can’t do that either. Alito and Thomas have that base covered as well.

But, there is one thing Americans do have to worry about: Will the High Court retain its independence, long enough, at least, to prevent harm that would fracture Heller, McDonald, and Bruen?

Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli (Antonyuk II) can become the fourth seminal U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment case, or it can, ironically, unwind Heller, McDonald, and Bruen. What do we mean by that?

Consider: If Biden has an opportunity to make even one more nomination for a seat on the High Court, that nominee will be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

Republicans won’t be able to stop that from happening this time. And we would bet dollars to donuts whom that nominee would be.

Our guess is the nominee would be none other than the present Attorney General: Merrick Garland. Garland has been waiting in the wings for years for the opportunity. As Biden’s Attorney General, Americans have more than a hint of the disaster Garland is capable of unleashing on this Country.

What we have seen of Garland’s ignoble and unlawful actions thus far as the head of the DOJ would pale in comparison to his rulings as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Garland would be a major and negative influence on the Chief Justice, and his rulings would be written in stone. The Bill of Rights would be undone. No question about any of this.


About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

Arbalest Quarrel

Subscribe
Notify of
4 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
The other Jim

There is no given timeline for the Hochul’s Federal Second Circuit Judges. 30 days is “reasonable time” and Plaintiff should file subsequent documents with the High Court stating the delay has caused their constitutional rights to be denied.

Dubi Loo

Rather than being promoted to SCOTUS, Garland should be impeached and removed from office.

gregs

how can the 2nd circuit not give an explanation of their decision in this case? how can you fight, cause i said so? do facts and reasoning have no meaning to these “jurists”?
let’s see how fast they move this case along so scotus won’t spank them. and here i thought the 9th circuit were the only clowns.

Sisu

A mostly optimistic and interesting analysis; though a bit untimely given SCOTUS also refused certiorari to Gazzola, and the 2nd Circuit Appeals Court has set March 20th as the date for oral arguments in four cases – three challenge aspects of the CCIA (NY S.51001): Antonyuk, Hardaway and Christian; and one Gazzola while challenging CCIA is more substantively focused on FFLs, business owners, and individuals, their now inability to operate in the lawful stream of commerce in firearms and ammunition (NY S.9407-B, 9458, and 4970-A). Additionally, the first three cases are appeals of “emergency interim stays of preliminary injunctions” against… Read more »