Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum
Subdeacon Joe

Benitez Caved

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Image may contain: text

 

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2019-04-04-Order-Staying-in-Part-Judgment-Pending-Appeal.pdf

 

Quote

A Substantial Case on the Merits The Attorney General has not made a strong showing, to this Court, that he is likely to succeed on the merits. Nevertheless, both sides are aware that other courts have come to contrasting conclusions on similar issues. Of course, facts matter and the facts are different. Strong and thoughtful views may be found on both sides of the important legal questions presented by this case. This Court’s decision cuts a less-traveled path and the outcome is very important to all citizens. “There are many ways to articulate the minimum quantum of likely success necessary to justify a stay — be it a ‘reasonable probability’ or ‘fair prospect,’ . . . Case 3:17-cv-01017-BEN-JLB Document 97 Filed 04/04/19 PageID.8213 Page 2 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Order Staying Judgment Pending Appeal (17-cv-1017-BEN-JLB) ‘a substantial case on the merits,’ . . . [or] that ‘serious legal questions are raised.’ We think these formulations are essentially interchangeable, and that none of them demand a showing that success is more likely than not. Regardless of how one expresses the requirement, the idea is that in order to justify a stay, a petitioner must show, at a minimum, that she has a substantial case for relief on the merits.” LeivaPerez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 967–68 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). In this case, the Attorney General has demonstrated a substantial case on the merits, which favors a stay. Irreparable Injury to the State The Attorney General says that a state suffers irreparable injury whenever its laws are enjoined. There is strong support for that claim. Abbott, 571 U.S. 1061, 134 S. Ct. at 506 (“With respect to the second factor, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the State faced irreparable harm because “‘any time a State is enjoined by a court from effectuating statutes enacted by representatives of its people, it suffers a form of irreparable injury.’” Maryland v. King, 133 S.Ct. 1, 3 (2012) (Roberts, C.J., in chambers) (quoting New Motor Vehicle Bd. of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1351 (1977) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers)).”). The Ninth Circuit, however, has never adopted this view. Latta v. Otter, 771 F.3d 496, 500 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Individual justices, in orders issued from chambers, have expressed the view that a state suffers irreparable injury when one of its laws is enjoined. See Maryland v. King,133 S.Ct. 1, 3 (2012) (Roberts, C.J., in chambers); New Motor Vehicle Bd. of California v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1351 (1977) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers). No opinion for the Court adopts this view.”). The Attorney General may be correct, but it does not end the inquiry. “As the cited authority suggests, a state may suffer an abstract form of harm whenever one of its acts is enjoined. To the extent that is true, however, it is not dispositive of the balance of harms analysis. If it were, then the rule requiring “balance” of “competing claims of injury” would be eviscerated.” Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Case 3:17-cv-01017-BEN-JLB Document 97 Filed 04/04/19 PageID.8214 Page 3 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 Order Staying Judgment Pending Appeal (17-cv-1017-BEN-JLB) California, Inc. v. Maxwell-Jolly, 572 F.3d 644, 658 (9th Cir. 2009), vacated on other grounds and remanded sub nom. Douglas v. Indep. Living Ctr. of S. California, Inc., 565 U.S. 606 (2012). “Federal courts instead have the power to enjoin state actions, in part, because those actions sometimes offend federal law provisions [or in this case, one of the Bill of Rights], which, like state statutes, are themselves ‘enactments of its people or their representatives.’” Id. (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). Injury to Other Parties Without question, entering a stay pending appeal will harm the Plaintiffs, and all others like the Plaintiffs (who are many), who would choose to acquire and possess a firearm magazine holding more than 10 rounds for self-defense. “It is well established that the deprivation of constitutional rights ‘unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’” Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127, 1144 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012), quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976)). Where the Public Interest Lay The State’s interest in enforcing a law merges with the public interest, where the law is valid. Nken, 556 U.S. at 435. At the same time, however, “‘it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.’” Am. Beverage Ass’n v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 916 F.3d 749, 758 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Melendres, 695 F.3d at 1002).

 

Edited by Subdeacon Joe

Share this post


Link to post

Joe... for those of us who are bleary-eyed by this time of the evening, can you give us a ten word synopsis...?  hypnotized.gif

 

I think I know what it says, but wanna know for sure...  whistling.gif

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 said:

Joe... for those of us who are bleary-eyed by this time of the evening, can you give us a ten word synopsis...?  hypnotized.gif

 

I think I know what it says, but wanna know for sure...  whistling.gif

 

 In other words, those restrictions will once again be enforceable after that time.  But the ruling also clarifies that the injunction against those restrictions will remain in effect “for those persons and business entities who have manufactured, imported, sold, or bought magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds between the entry of this Court’s injunction on March 29, 2019 and 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019.” 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Additionally, the ruling also makes clear that the preliminary injunction issued in July 2017, which prohibited the enforcement of the “possession” restriction enacted by Proposition 63 and Senate Bill 1446 will remain in effect during the appeal.  In other words, California residents who lawfully possess magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds may continue to possess them while the case is appealed.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.