New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. City of New York: Cert granted 1-22-19

[abinsinia]

DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/11/2019.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...ic/18-280.html

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...ic/18-280.html

That means we should watch the Orders coming out on Monday, the 14th (and the docket).

[CalAlumnus]

Looks like Peruta was first distributed for the conference of 3/24/17, but didn't get a decision until 6/26/17. It was distributed 12 times in total.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...-v-California/

[Ubermcoupe]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...ic/18-280.html

IIRC, anything after 2 distributions and the likelihood of cert drops off a cliff.

Continual distributions usually imply some type of worded response(s) will accompany the official announcement (i.e. in the case of a cert denial, a dissent).

[wireless]

Originally Posted by Ubermcoupe

IIRC, anything after 2 distributions and the likelihood of cert drops off a cliff.

Continual distributions usually imply some type of worded response(s) will accompany the official announcement (i.e. in the case of a cert denial, a dissent).

This is what I’ve read as well, but Caentano was relisted 5 times. It’s possible this case is so egregious that there could be a summary judgement without oral arguments.

Even for the “I support the 2nd amendment but...” crowd, this law doesn’t make much sense. From my layman’s understanding they could reverse and not even address the 2A.

[abinsinia]

They have a relist blog post talking about the statistics surrounding relists.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/10/re...end-to-others/

[abinsinia]

How does the conference vote go when they're missing a judge (i.e. RBG)?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Paladin

That means we should watch the Orders coming out on Monday, the 14th (and the docket).

7 hours to go!

Originally Posted by abinsinia

How does the conference vote go when they're missing a judge (i.e. RBG)?

My guess is that RBG reads the briefs, etc ahead of time and can phone in, fax, or email her vote.

Or, since this is a private conference, she could do the prep and participate in the conference via conference call. (Will they hear her snoring on the other end of the line? )

[ajb78]

Nothing on the order list dated 01/14/2019, what am I missing?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by ajb78

Nothing on the order list dated 01/14/2019, what am I missing?

Now we get to watch for when it's SCOTUS docket page is updated with its current status:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...ic/18-280.html

[press1280]

Originally Posted by ajb78

Nothing on the order list dated 01/14/2019, what am I missing?

You're not missing anything. It'll likely be listed for the next conference, possibly even today.

[Paladin]

Jan 14 2019 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/18/2019.

Originally Posted by abinsinia

They have a relist blog post talking about the statistics surrounding relists.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/10/re...end-to-others/

Thanks. From that article:

If a case has been relisted once, it generally means that the Court is paying close attention to the case, and the chances of a grant are higher than for an average case. But once a case has been relisted more than twice, it is generally no longer a likely candidate for plenary review, and is more likely to result in a summary reversal or a dissent from the denial of cert.

<snip>

(We are told by those who would know that rescheduling and relisting now serve similar purposes.)

... now that the Supreme Court once again has a full complement of justices, we expect that there may be a brief flurry of grants from the ranks of the relists, at least once Justice Brett Kavanaugh has had a chance to settle in and review them. After that, it is possible the relist trends will continue to zigzag as another justice’s preferences affect relist practices.

[wireless]

If we get another re-list I’m betting summary reversal. This case is pretty egregious and they could settle this case without addressing outside the home.

[Prwterbird]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Thanks. From that article:

Another good snippet from that article:

[Prwterbird]

Originally Posted by wireless

If we get another re-list I’m betting summary reversal. This case is pretty egregious and they could settle this case without addressing outside the home.

I think your right, even though it would be a great opportunity to confirm outside the home without getting into CC vs OC.

[wireless]

Originally Posted by Prwterbird

I think your right, even though it would be a great opportunity to confirm outside the home without getting into CC vs OC.

Obviously I’m not a legal expert but it *feels* the way Caentano did. I suspect the ruling might have a little more teeth than Caentano did. Hopefully with summary reversal it’ll be an indication they want to take a more import 2A case soon.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by wireless

Obviously I’m not a legal expert but it *feels* the way Caentano did. I suspect the ruling might have a little more teeth than Caentano did. Hopefully with summary reversal it’ll be an indication they want to take a more import 2A case soon.

This would require 6 justices, minimum, to sign off on.

What in this opinion would lead you to believe that?

[wireless]

Originally Posted by press1280

This would require 6 justices, minimum, to sign off on.

What in this opinion would lead you to believe that?

Why do you say six justices? I was under the impression it only required five, but typically summary judgement is written per curciam.

They can reverse and remand this case without really expanding the scope of the second amendment. Free travel of a handgun from one residence to a second residence is pretty innocuous, even for some of the liberal justices.

Also I want to reiterate that I am talking about if I had to guess between summary judgement or dissent from denial of cert. They could still grant cert for all we know.

[press1280]

I thought per curiam needs 6, perhaps I'm wrong.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by wireless

Why do you say six justices? I was under the impression it only required five, but typically summary judgement is written per curciam.

They can reverse and remand this case without really expanding the scope of the second amendment. Free travel of a handgun from one residence to a second residence is pretty innocuous, even for some of the liberal justices.

Also I want to reiterate that I am talking about if I had to guess between summary judgement or dissent from denial of cert. They could still grant cert for all we know.

The plaintiffs also made commerce clause and right to travel arguments. So if a person curiam was coming it seems more likely to me to be via one of these routes, and not the 2A one.

[BryMan92]

Some other ramifications may also be the idea of state residency, too.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Paladin

I've only read the posts above, but if it is as an egregious decision as it sounds, I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS pulls another Caetano and delivers a relatively quick per curiam decision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts

In case it does follow in Caetano's footsteps, I thought I'd refresh everyone's memory by posting some SCOTUS history of Caetano.

Jul 2 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 28, 2015.
Jul 13 2015 Response Requested . (Due August 12, 2015)
Aug 10 2015 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 13, 2015.
Aug 11 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Arming Women Against Rape & Endangerment filed.
Aug 12 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Commonwealth Second Amendment filed.
Oct 13 2015 Brief of respondent Massachusetts in opposition filed.
Oct 27 2015 Reply of petitioner Jaime Caetano filed.
Oct 29 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 13, 2015.
Nov 16 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 24, 2015.
Nov 30 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 4, 2015.
Dec 7 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 11, 2015.
Dec 8 2015 Record Requested .
Dec 14 2015 Record received from the Supreme Judicial Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1 envelope).
Dec 28 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 8, 2016.
Jan 11 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 15, 2016.
Jan 19 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 22, 2016.
Feb 8 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 19, 2016.
Feb 29 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 4, 2016.
Mar 14 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 18, 2016.
Mar 21 2016 Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Opinion per curiam. (Detached Opinion). Justice Alito, concurring in the judgment. (Detached opinion).

More at:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search....s/14-10078.htm

If it does, even if you consider Caetano's real work to have started only in late Oct (vs early July), it still took >4.5 months for the opinion.

Best to load up on that popcorn, we may be still waiting for it in early June.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by BryMan92

Some other ramifications may also be the idea of state residency, too.

An earlier case did rule that an out of state resident does qualify for a NY permit if they own a second home in NY.

[kuug]

Roberts really is going to tank this case to avoid a "controversial" slam dunk case isn't he. If this one is denied cert there's almost no chance of us getting a gun rights case infront of court until we get another justice. This one was supposed to be easy, a slam dunk.

[Paladin]

42 hours to go!

[Offwidth]

My hope is not up.

[press1280]

A very good chance this will be relisted again.

[SWalt]

Tagged

[Paladin]

8 hours and 15 minutes to go!

[wireless]

Originally Posted by kuug

Roberts really is going to tank this case to avoid a "controversial" slam dunk case isn't he. If this one is denied cert there's almost no chance of us getting a gun rights case infront of court until we get another justice. This one was supposed to be easy, a slam dunk.

Meh, we don't know that yet. While Roberts has made some bad leftist decisions, he voted against gay marriage, for citizens united, and with both Heller and McDonald.

[ajb78]

Originally Posted by Scotus Blog

2 minutes ago
There is one new grant today, in the New York City gun rights case NY State Rifle and Pistol v. New York.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/01/l...d-opinions-37/

[CalAlumnus]

Oh heck yeah!

[kuug]

I'm genuinely shocked. For once there is actual hope

[selfshrevident]

NICE!

[Offwidth]

Well, we might just get our locked and unloaded transportation. :/

[Paladin]

Next is the question of when will it be heard. In my notes I have “SCOTUS doesn’t take for that session any case after the Monday after MLK Day.” If that is correct, this case should be heard and decided this term (i.e., we should get a decision before 2019 July 01).

[CalAlumnus]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Next is the question of when will it be heard. In my notes I have “SCOTUS doesn’t take for that session any case after the Monday after MLK Day.” If that is correct, this case May be heard and decided this term (i.e., we should get a decision before 2019 July 01).

I have to think next session is more likely, considering the potential significance.

Am I right in thinking that while the facts of the case are “locked and unloaded,” the Court could use this opportunity to define strict scrutiny as the appropriate standard of review for 2A?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by CalAlumnus

I have to think next session is more likely, considering the potential significance.

Frankly, I'd prefer that to give RBG time to "retire" and be replaced. A 6:3 win sets a stronger precedent, in stare decisis terms, than a 5:4 win.

Originally Posted by CalAlumnus

Am I right in thinking that while the facts of the case are “locked and unloaded,” the Court could use this opportunity to define strict scrutiny as the appropriate standard of review for 2A?

I haven't read this case. On first page of this thread, in post #9 I just went by others' descriptions of it where I said if accurate, this case may be another Caetano where they don't even hear orals, just go straight to per curiam. Getting ready to sell my house and move, so don't know if I'll even bother, just let SCOTUS do it's job....

[CalAlumnus]

Originally Posted by Paladin

this case may be another Caetano where they don't even hear orals, just go straight to per curiam. Getting ready to sell my house and move, so don't know if I'll even bother, just let SCOTUS do it's job....

Wouldn’t that mean we have a per curiam opinion when cert is granted? That’s what happened with Caetano. But cert was granted today with no per curiam opinion. Do per curiam opinions sometimes come later?

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by CalAlumnus

Wouldn’t that mean we have a per curiam opinion when cert is granted? That’s what happened with Caetano. But cert was granted today with no per curiam opinion. Do per curiam opinions sometimes come later?

It’s going full on. There is going to be a lot coming from Clarence Thomas on this who I think will write the opinion.

It’s clear Kennedy was the log jam now. Look for Thomas to set 2A precedent.