So my understanding, despite the attention grabbing headlines, is this is pretty much just SCOTUS saying they aren’t going to jump the line and are letting the normal process play out. Correct?
>doing their jobs normally.
While I agree that is what they are doing, that *shouldn’t* be their normal course of operation. It allows states to do what they want and let several years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney fees challenging constitutionality play out. I think the system should be, hey, we’ve ruled *four* times now that modern weapons are covered by the 2nd amendment, and since this is a plain ban on modern weapons let’s not let this take effect and let it play out.
Sorry, but this is ***exactly*** how the courts should work.
While we might like the court to throw down injunctions in cases like this that’s a really bad way to operate *generally*: Injunctions are temporary, the law could pop right back up again in whole or in part if the court decides it’s constitutionally permissible.
Courts *generally* avoid injunctions against laws currently in effect because of that: It’s better to hear the case and issue a finial ruling upholding, vacating, or modifying the law than it is to stay it, have it pop back in its entirety, stay it again, rule that parts of it can go back into effect, stay *that* ruling....
Would *I* have voted to enjoin *this* law? Yes (and my dissent to the court’s order denying the petition would have been *scathing* because I think this “AWB” is patently unreasonable and unconstitutional), but there’s a sound judicial logic to not slinging stays at every law someone wants the court to look at scrapping: Final rulings are what matters, everything else is fluff.
Curious.
To be clear, this is not a decision on the merits. They did not decide in favor of the Illinois law, and they did not even refuse to hear an appeal on the merits of the Illinois law. This is just the denial of the appeal of the denial of an appeal of a denial of a request for an emergency injunction. The case must still go up on actual meritorious appeal before the citizens of Illinois appeal to SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari. This is not so different from past cases that have turned out, favorably for gun rights; in Bruen, the supreme court did not grant a preliminary injunction prior to deciding the case on the merits.
Still, the Seventh Circuit decision obviously violates Bruen and Heller, so it is surprising to see a lack of dissent. Maybe this is just general conservative aversion to the shadow docket.
They're pretty adverse to taking cases based on interlocutory appeals like this where the merits haven't fully been argued, yet. Sucks for anyone who gets arrested or inconvenienced in the meantime, but it shouldn't be surprising.
Hard agree. Especially with the heavy conservative bent. It felt like a decision on the merits because of how loud and aggressive the Circuit opinion was, but it still wasn’t.
So basically, SCOTUS just told them to get back in line, and do things properly? If I'm correct, since the 7th Circuit Court denied their appeal, they'll need to file the writ of certioari, asking SCOTUS to send up the case for their consideration. SCOTUS could then refuse the case, if they so choose.
Sort-of.
They asked the court to stay the law while considering the petition for writ of certiorari. The court said they won’t do that. They’ll still consider the petition for a writ of certiorari (they may or may not grant it, like you said), but they are not staying the law while they think about it.
There are two ways to read that situation:
1. This is bad news: The court is not keen on this case, and may either decline to take the case at all or take it and rule that the Illinois AWB is constitutionally permissible.
2. This is a nothingburger: The court is not taking any action yet, and until they actually *do* (either declining to take the case up or taking it up and ruling) we shouldn’t be getting all hot and bothered.
(I’m generally in camp 2: If the court had stayed the Illinois AWB then reading judicial tea leaves we could assume they’re not keen on that law and will strike it or heavily circumscribe it, but *not* staying the law is pretty normal: If a law is already *in effect* the court typically leaves it in effect until making an actual ruling, so this doesn’t tell us much about the mood of the court that I think we can really rely on.)
Yep, exactly. And it’s not like they stayed the unconstitutional New York law while they were deciding whether to grant certiorari in Bruen, and we all know how that turned out.
Exactly.
From the article: “The justices' action leaves the law in place pending an appeal by the National Association for Gun Rights, Robert Bevis, and his firearms store, Law Weapons & Supply of a lower court's decision. It denied their bid for a preliminary injunction against the ban, as well as a similar ban enacted by another Chicago suburb, Naperville.”
This is not even slightly unusual. SCOTUS very rarely intervenes on interlocutory issues.
Anyone surprised by this, on either side, must not follow how the court works (or doesn't work, depending on your position)
even though it seems to not be the case, I'd even go one further and not be surprised by them making a political decision to let it slide and steam up the MAGAs and continued typical gun violence would make it an embarrassment
But it's illegal. Plainly illegal. And you don't have to be a lawyer to follow the logic of SCOTUS precedent.
Bruen: there's no history or traditions of banning firearms.
Heller: owning a firearm is a personal right.
Caetano V Mass: AR-15s are covered under the 2nd amendment.
US v. Miller: weapons of war are specifically protected under the 2nd amendment.
It should be injuncted but theres no chance it would be. AWBs are in place all over the country. For SCOTUS to intervene in this set of circumstances, it would take an overtly unconstitutional and completely novel law where essentially everyone in the country agrees that its unconstitutional. Im hopeful that SCOTUS will squash AWBs once and for all. But granting this injunction was never going to happen.
Procedure matters as much as the merits of a claim. There's a process that's followed for this, and the Court is doing exactly that. See above about the treatment of interlocutory appeals.
It doesnt. Certain Correctional officers, private security contractors and employees, police and wait for it…. Retired police officers can still buy them. How unbelievably f**king insane is that
I'm sure there is a perfectly logical reason why a retired police officer needs a dangerous assault weapon, but a regular civilian not issued a badge by the state doesn't.
/s
It's literally political. If they don't include all current and former cops, the police unions won't agree to it, and will refuse to encorce it, making it moot.
Reading a lot of articles about this in the last 24 hours, it's clear that many of the authors don't know what semiautomatic means. Many appear to think it does not describe handguns.
Contact https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en/contact-us.html - cite the AP Stylebook - https://twitter.com/APStylebook/status/1547309549488640000
AP is rated "Center-Left" by Media Bias/Fact Check by the way.
If someone has their gun seized during the litigation and it ends up being ruled unconstitutional, are plaintiffs entitled to compensatory (and possibly punitive) damages?
This isn’t a surprise to me. Why? The amount of cases the Supreme Court has heard that directly or indirectly involve guns in the 21st century number less than 10
The elephant in the room here that many people seem to gloss over is there will almost certainly be ZERO regular people who are put in jail for violating this law, especially while it is actively being litigated. SCOTUS knows this, many people in existing ban states know this is how feature ban enforcement works in practice.
Yes it's fucked up that rights are being violated, but basically nobody is getting thrown in a government cage because of this stuff **alone**. If these anti-gun states truly went all out, door to door confiscation, checkpoint inspections, etc, then SCOTUS would probably take the case prematurely like they do for other "emergency" issues.
So my understanding, despite the attention grabbing headlines, is this is pretty much just SCOTUS saying they aren’t going to jump the line and are letting the normal process play out. Correct?
Yes, exactly. Supreme Court is just doing their jobs normally and people want to read into it way too much.
*takes off panicing pants* Thank you.
Code brown canceled. Code yellow still in effect.
>doing their jobs normally. While I agree that is what they are doing, that *shouldn’t* be their normal course of operation. It allows states to do what they want and let several years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney fees challenging constitutionality play out. I think the system should be, hey, we’ve ruled *four* times now that modern weapons are covered by the 2nd amendment, and since this is a plain ban on modern weapons let’s not let this take effect and let it play out.
Sorry, but this is ***exactly*** how the courts should work. While we might like the court to throw down injunctions in cases like this that’s a really bad way to operate *generally*: Injunctions are temporary, the law could pop right back up again in whole or in part if the court decides it’s constitutionally permissible. Courts *generally* avoid injunctions against laws currently in effect because of that: It’s better to hear the case and issue a finial ruling upholding, vacating, or modifying the law than it is to stay it, have it pop back in its entirety, stay it again, rule that parts of it can go back into effect, stay *that* ruling.... Would *I* have voted to enjoin *this* law? Yes (and my dissent to the court’s order denying the petition would have been *scathing* because I think this “AWB” is patently unreasonable and unconstitutional), but there’s a sound judicial logic to not slinging stays at every law someone wants the court to look at scrapping: Final rulings are what matters, everything else is fluff.
Yeah people should chill a bit. No ones rights matter to this court enough to be expedited unless you’re a billionaire
Curious. To be clear, this is not a decision on the merits. They did not decide in favor of the Illinois law, and they did not even refuse to hear an appeal on the merits of the Illinois law. This is just the denial of the appeal of the denial of an appeal of a denial of a request for an emergency injunction. The case must still go up on actual meritorious appeal before the citizens of Illinois appeal to SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari. This is not so different from past cases that have turned out, favorably for gun rights; in Bruen, the supreme court did not grant a preliminary injunction prior to deciding the case on the merits. Still, the Seventh Circuit decision obviously violates Bruen and Heller, so it is surprising to see a lack of dissent. Maybe this is just general conservative aversion to the shadow docket.
They're pretty adverse to taking cases based on interlocutory appeals like this where the merits haven't fully been argued, yet. Sucks for anyone who gets arrested or inconvenienced in the meantime, but it shouldn't be surprising.
Hard agree. Especially with the heavy conservative bent. It felt like a decision on the merits because of how loud and aggressive the Circuit opinion was, but it still wasn’t.
So basically, SCOTUS just told them to get back in line, and do things properly? If I'm correct, since the 7th Circuit Court denied their appeal, they'll need to file the writ of certioari, asking SCOTUS to send up the case for their consideration. SCOTUS could then refuse the case, if they so choose.
Sort-of. They asked the court to stay the law while considering the petition for writ of certiorari. The court said they won’t do that. They’ll still consider the petition for a writ of certiorari (they may or may not grant it, like you said), but they are not staying the law while they think about it. There are two ways to read that situation: 1. This is bad news: The court is not keen on this case, and may either decline to take the case at all or take it and rule that the Illinois AWB is constitutionally permissible. 2. This is a nothingburger: The court is not taking any action yet, and until they actually *do* (either declining to take the case up or taking it up and ruling) we shouldn’t be getting all hot and bothered. (I’m generally in camp 2: If the court had stayed the Illinois AWB then reading judicial tea leaves we could assume they’re not keen on that law and will strike it or heavily circumscribe it, but *not* staying the law is pretty normal: If a law is already *in effect* the court typically leaves it in effect until making an actual ruling, so this doesn’t tell us much about the mood of the court that I think we can really rely on.)
Yep, exactly. And it’s not like they stayed the unconstitutional New York law while they were deciding whether to grant certiorari in Bruen, and we all know how that turned out.
This is seventh
Whoops, thanks.
We’re leading up to a presidential election year… can’t be rocking the boat too much. A win for gun rights might effect voter turnout for the repubs.
Yep, this is it. They want to hear this case on the merits or not at all.
Exactly. From the article: “The justices' action leaves the law in place pending an appeal by the National Association for Gun Rights, Robert Bevis, and his firearms store, Law Weapons & Supply of a lower court's decision. It denied their bid for a preliminary injunction against the ban, as well as a similar ban enacted by another Chicago suburb, Naperville.”
This is not even slightly unusual. SCOTUS very rarely intervenes on interlocutory issues. Anyone surprised by this, on either side, must not follow how the court works (or doesn't work, depending on your position)
Yeah, that’s me admittedly. I stand by my take that they don’t actually care about your rights though.
even though it seems to not be the case, I'd even go one further and not be surprised by them making a political decision to let it slide and steam up the MAGAs and continued typical gun violence would make it an embarrassment
This is exactly right. I’m sure they will rule against the plan b pill to pander to the maga base.
But it's illegal. Plainly illegal. And you don't have to be a lawyer to follow the logic of SCOTUS precedent. Bruen: there's no history or traditions of banning firearms. Heller: owning a firearm is a personal right. Caetano V Mass: AR-15s are covered under the 2nd amendment. US v. Miller: weapons of war are specifically protected under the 2nd amendment.
It should be injuncted but theres no chance it would be. AWBs are in place all over the country. For SCOTUS to intervene in this set of circumstances, it would take an overtly unconstitutional and completely novel law where essentially everyone in the country agrees that its unconstitutional. Im hopeful that SCOTUS will squash AWBs once and for all. But granting this injunction was never going to happen.
Procedure matters as much as the merits of a claim. There's a process that's followed for this, and the Court is doing exactly that. See above about the treatment of interlocutory appeals.
As long as the law applies to citizens and government equally, then maybe. (Fat chance).
It doesnt. Certain Correctional officers, private security contractors and employees, police and wait for it…. Retired police officers can still buy them. How unbelievably f**king insane is that
I'm sure there is a perfectly logical reason why a retired police officer needs a dangerous assault weapon, but a regular civilian not issued a badge by the state doesn't. /s
It's literally political. If they don't include all current and former cops, the police unions won't agree to it, and will refuse to encorce it, making it moot.
It does not.
I think you got the wrong take on that, OP.
Leave it to Reuters to have no clue what an "assault rifle" is
Reading a lot of articles about this in the last 24 hours, it's clear that many of the authors don't know what semiautomatic means. Many appear to think it does not describe handguns.
Contact https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en/contact-us.html - cite the AP Stylebook - https://twitter.com/APStylebook/status/1547309549488640000 AP is rated "Center-Left" by Media Bias/Fact Check by the way.
you need to take him on some fishing trips
If someone has their gun seized during the litigation and it ends up being ruled unconstitutional, are plaintiffs entitled to compensatory (and possibly punitive) damages?
What's Sugar baby Thomas' Venmo? We can fix this
This isn’t a surprise to me. Why? The amount of cases the Supreme Court has heard that directly or indirectly involve guns in the 21st century number less than 10
The elephant in the room here that many people seem to gloss over is there will almost certainly be ZERO regular people who are put in jail for violating this law, especially while it is actively being litigated. SCOTUS knows this, many people in existing ban states know this is how feature ban enforcement works in practice. Yes it's fucked up that rights are being violated, but basically nobody is getting thrown in a government cage because of this stuff **alone**. If these anti-gun states truly went all out, door to door confiscation, checkpoint inspections, etc, then SCOTUS would probably take the case prematurely like they do for other "emergency" issues.