John Kloehr Posted March 9 Posted March 9 Orders from today, Monday 3/9 from 3/6 conference. Cert denied in the following cases: Felon in Possession: 25-6079 12/12 Morelock v US 25-6285 Altimirano v US 25-6732 Delgado v US 25-6749 Williams v US 25-6750 Johnson v US Park Carry Ban: 25-872 LaFave v Fairfax County Beaird will return. None of the other felon details surprise me for reasons stated months ago. I'm a bit surprised LaFave was denied, it could have been held and GVRed with Wolford. If there is any clue in this denial, it is the Wolford ruling will be narrow. No action on any other cases, in particular the ban cases will carry to the future. There will now be a one-week break in the conference schedule. Back in about 10 days with the schedule for Friday, 3/20; 17 cases are already scheduled for then. As usual, there are also a good handful of new filings, will look to see if there is anything "interesting" in those. 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted March 17 Posted March 17 Conference Friday 3/20, orders the following Monday. Friday is the first of another group of 3 weekly conferences. This Friday is a short session. Cases up for discussion this week are: Felon in Possession: 25-5343 2/20*, 2/27, 3/6 Beaird v US 25-6063 LeBlanc v US 25-6105 12/12 Isaacson v US 25-6711 England v US 25-6729 Heaggeans v US 25-6761 Alexis v US 25-6771 Reed v US 25-6775 McCowan v US 25-6868 Finney v US 25-6870 Cheatham v US 25-6879 Belin v US 25-6896 Pettyjohn v US Drugs: 25-6813 Simpson v US AWB/Magazine Bans: 25-153 12/5, 12/12, 1/9, 1/16, 1/23, 2/20, 2/27, 3/6 Gator’s v Washington 25-198 11/21*, 12/5, 12/12, 1/9, 1/16, 1/23, 2/20, 2/27, 3/6 Duncan v Bonta 25-238 12/5, 12/12, 1/9, 1/16, 1/23, 2/20, 2/27, 3/6 Viramontes v Cook County 25-421 1/23*, 2/20 , 2/27, 3/6 NAGR v Lamont 25-566 2/20, 2/27, 3/6 Grant v Higgins (CT) 25-6817 Taylor v US (Pistol full-auto) 25-6858 Gomez v US (obliterated SN) Supplemental briefs filed in Gator's and Duncan documenting the magazine decision in DC. Bonta filed a reply in Duncan asking SCOTUS to not consider the circuit split pending DCs appeal. The returning cases were not on the schedule until after the supplemental filing. I will not be surprised if Taylor and Gomez are denied cert on their first round. Mass Transit Bans: 25-541 1/9 Schoenthal v Raoul Carry Bans: 25-997 Sinnissippi Rod & Gun Club, Inc. v. Raoul Open Carry Ban 25-6884 Ali v Portland Affirmative defense challenge 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted March 20 Posted March 20 Small updates: NAGR v Lamont: Supplemental brief filed before the conference today with DC magazine ruling info. Schoenthal v Raoul: Rescheduled prior to conference, will not be discussed today. Future conference schedule TBD. Conference orders Monday. 3 Quote
John Kloehr Posted March 23 Posted March 23 Orders from today, Monday 3/23 from 3/20 conference. Cert denied in the following cases: Felon in Possession: 25-6063 LeBlanc v US 25-6105 12/12 Isaacson v US 25-6711 England v US 25-6729 Heaggeans v US 25-6761 Alexis v US 25-6771 Reed v US 25-6775 McCowan v US 25-6868 Finney v US 25-6870 Cheatham v US 25-6879 Belin v US 25-6896 Pettyjohn v US Drugs: 25-6813 Simpson v US AWB/Magazine Bans: 25-6817 Taylor v US (Pistol full-auto) 25-6858 Gomez v US (obliterated SN) Carry Bans: 25-997 Sinnissippi Rod & Gun Club, Inc. v. Raoul Open Carry Ban 25-6884 Ali v Portland Affirmative defense challenge Beaird will return again. No action on any hardware ban cases. 3 Quote
John Kloehr Posted March 23 Posted March 23 On 3/9/2026 at 10:50 AM, John Kloehr said: Orders from today, Monday 3/9... Beaird will return. 47 minutes ago, John Kloehr said: Orders from today, Monday 3/23... Beaird will return again. Figured it was worth taking a look at Beaird to see what might be interesting about it. 25-5343 2/20*, 2/27, 3/6, 3/20 Beaird v US The plaintiff makes 3 claims, one of which is that his sentence was increased with an enhancement due to his firearm having a 17-round magazine. The law in his jurisdiction is 15 rounds. His petition: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-5343/369316/20250811083309424_Beaird Cert Petition FINAL.pdf When considering his 2 other claims, I read the government response: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-5343/391341/20260109165913136_25-5343_Beaird--Br_in_Opp.pdf Which includes: " Furthermore, petitioner possessed a firearm in this case after sustaining felony convictions for burglary and aggravated assault against a public servant. " Considering this in its entirety, it may be some members of SCOTUS are reviewing this case for the magazine sentencing enhancement. Otherwise, there really is nothing which I see distinguishing this petition from the many previously denied cert. 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted March 23 Posted March 23 (edited) Category summary of active 2A petitions: Petitions Felon In Possession: 18 Except for Beaird, none have been through conference before Drug Users: 6 Probably held pending Hemani, then likely to GVR Gun and Magazine Bans: 5 The ones we hope for Cert Mass Transit Carry Ban: 1 Recently active again Carry: 1 A nut case (IMO), but not adjudicated as such... Nor any evidence of danger Reciprocity: 1 Has "grown legs" Young Adult 18-20 Prohibition: 5 These have not moved for a while Courts Marshal Lifetime Ban: 1 Response waived, requested, pending extension request PLCAA: 1 New York State trying to work around it Licensing: 1 Response waived, requested NFA: 1 This case is pre-1BBB --- Total: 41 Edited March 23 by John Kloehr Formatting Quote
John Kloehr Posted March 25 Posted March 25 Conference Friday 3/27, orders the following Monday. Cases up for discussion this week are: Felon in Possession: 25-5343 2/20*, 2/27, 3/6, 3/20 Beaird v US 25-6920 Brown v US There are a small number of cases in this category scheduled for later conferences, most on the list are waiting on responses. AWB/Magazine Bans: 25-153 12/5, 12/12, 1/9, 1/16, 1/23, 2/20, 2/27, 3/6, 3/20 Gator’s v Washington (1) 25-198 11/21*, 12/5, 12/12, 1/9, 1/16, 1/23, 2/20, 2/27, 3/6, 3/20 Duncan v Bonta (1) 25-238 12/5, 12/12, 1/9, 1/16, 1/23, 2/20, 2/27, 3/6, 3/20 Viramontes v Cook County 25-421 1/23*, 2/20 , 2/27, 3/6, 3/20 NAGR v Lamont (1) 25-566 2/20, 2/27, 3/6, 3/20 Grant v Higgins (CT) (1): Cases with supplemental briefing on DC court magazine decision. Mass Transit Bans: 25-541 1/9, 3/20* Schoenthal v Raoul Rescheduled from earlier, no explanation provided. Disposition may depend on or even drive how broad or narrow the Wolford decision is. Licensing: 25-6940 Johnson v New York I do not expect the court to grant cert in this case. If it does, there would be a definite tension as to if the plaintiff (per his claim) had a prohibited rights violation over the 1st amendment or because he is a nut job (state's representation) which would be prohibited discretion. 2 Quote
Dapper Dave Posted March 27 Posted March 27 Thank you for the updates, sir. Fingers and other appendages crossed. 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted March 27 Posted March 27 Schoenthal v Raoul rescheduled day before the conference (second week in a row), no new date set at this time. 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted March 30 Posted March 30 Orders from today, Monday 3/30 from 3/27 conference. Cert denied in the following case: Felon in Possession: 25-6920 Brown v US All others continue in the future. The next conference is Thursday, I will post the schedule (probably) tomorrow. 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted March 31 Posted March 31 Conference Thursday 4/2, orders the following Monday. Cases up for discussion this week are: Felon in Possession: 25-1036 Browne v Reynolds (OH) 25-5343 2/20*, 2/27, 3/6, 3/20, 3/27 Beaird v US 25-6267 James v US 25-6920 Brown v US AWB/Magazine Bans: 25-153 12/5,12, 1/9,16,23, 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27 Gator’s v Washington (1) 25-198 11/21*, 12/5,12, 1/9,16,23, 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27 Duncan v Bonta (1) 25-238 12/5,12, 1/9,16,23, 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27 Viramontes v Cook County 25-421 1/23*, 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27 NAGR v Lamont (1) 25-566 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27 Grant v Higgins (CT) (1): Cases with supplemental briefing on DC court magazine decision. Mass Transit Bans: 25-541 1/9, 3/20* Schoenthal v Raoul Carry: 25-1060 R. R. v New Jersey Quote
H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 Posted March 31 Posted March 31 So, what is the status of the so called, "One Big Beautiful Lawsuit?" Quote
John Kloehr Posted March 31 Posted March 31 7 minutes ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said: So, what is the status of the so called, "One Big Beautiful Lawsuit?" Those are all in lower courts. There is one NFA lawsuit currently at the petition stage at the supreme court, that one is older from when the tax stamp was still $200. From my notes: NFA https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-1076.html Filed, response was due 4/13, response waived Cert petition published by FPC 3/11/25 25-1076 Peterson v US Suppressor tax, 5th circuit. 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted April 6 Posted April 6 (edited) Orders from today, Monday 4/6 from 4/2 conference. Cert denied in the following case: Felon in Possession: 25-1036 Browne v Reynolds (OH) 25-6267 James v US Mass Transit Bans: 25-541 1/9, 3/20* Schoenthal v Raoul Carry: 25-1060 R. R. v New Jersey All others continue in the future. There will be a one-week break in conferences. The next conference is Friday, April 17th, I will post the schedule around the 14th. Edited April 6 by John Kloehr Correct dates 3 Quote
John Kloehr Posted April 6 Posted April 6 Also denied today: 25-6920 Brown v US It was another felon in possession case. Found this in my proof-read updating my SCOTUS tracking list. Duke is reporting no new petitions in the last week. Not sure I believe them as they are tracking a lot fewer cases than I am. I did send them my list, does not seem they have done anything to update their site. 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted April 13 Posted April 13 Conferences scheduled for the next three Fridays, orders the following Mondays. The next conference this week is on 4/17. It is a split day conference. Cases up for discussion this week are: Felon In Possession 25-1076 Peterson v US 25-5343 2/20*, 2/27, 3/6, 3/20, 3/27, 4/2 Beaird v US 25-6787 Hunter v S. F. Disarmed by non-violent RO 25-6952 Doster v US 25-6962 Morrissette v US 25-6983 Scott v US 25-6987 Edwards v US 25-6994 Jackson v US Indictment for felony 25-7010 Conner v US 25-7035 Ramirez v US 25-7041 Mackins v US 25-7072 Abercrombie v US 25-7089 Fletcher v US This is 13 out of 16 known cases in this category. Except for Beaird, all are up for their first conference. Except for Beaird, no remaining petitions have been to conference before. Assume most of these will be denied. AWB/Magazine Bans 25-153 12/5,12, 1/9,16,23, 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2 Gator’s v Washington 25-198 11/21*, 12/5,12, 1/9,16,23, 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2 Duncan v Bonta 25-238 12/5,12, 1/9,16,23, 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2 Viramontes v Cook County 25-421 1/23*, 2/20 , 2/27, 3/6, 3/20, 3/27, 4/2 NAGR v Lamont 25-566 2/20, 2/27, 3/6, 3/20, 3/27, 4/2 Grant v Higgins (CT) All of these were just added back in to the conference schedule today. Fingers crossed they are not going to go down like Snopes et. al. last session. Reciprocity 25-5961 11/21 Gardner v Maryland Great set of facts and amazing support from the 2A legal community on this case. It started with a petition in forma pauparis. A few social media mentions caused a viral response. Now the case has full and real legal support, a mass of amici briefs, and a better-than-average chance of getting heard. See the full SCOTUS docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-5961.html NFA 25-1076 Peterson v US Suppressor tax, 5th circuit. This case pre-dates OBBB. I would not take much of a message from any denial of cert, the petitioner "forgot" to file and pay the $200 when he made his can. Some other facts might also reduce any sympathy for his case. 3 Quote
John Kloehr Posted April 20 Posted April 20 (edited) Orders from today, Monday 4/20 from 4/17 conference. Cert granted in the following case: 25-5343 2/20*, 2/27, 3/6, 3/20, 3/27, 4/2,17 Beaird v US Limited to the question of sentencing guidelines. The petitioner received a longer sentence due to magazine capacity. Should this section be deemed unconstitutional, (I think) his conviction will still stand, he just gets released sooner. I also found a related petition (missed in previous 2A searches, William Kirk brought it up): 25-5986 1/9 Richardson v US Which will probably be GVRed when Beaird get decided. Cert denied in the following cases: Felon In Possession: 25-1076 Peterson v US 25-6787 Hunter v S. F. Disarmed by non-violent RO 25-6952 Doster v US 25-6962 Morrissette v US 25-6983 Scott v US 25-6987 Edwards v US 25-6994 Jackson v US Indictment for felony 25-7010 Conner v US 25-7035 Ramirez v US 25-7041 Mackins v US 25-7072 Abercrombie v US 25-7089 Fletcher v US Except for Beaird, all denied as expected. AWB/Magazine Bans: No action on any, all will return. Reciprocity: 25-5961 11/21 Gardner v Maryland Sadly, this was denied. NFA: 25-1076 Peterson v US Suppressor tax, 5th circuit. Not surprised on this one, the claim predates OBBB. Will wait a day or two for individual dockets to update before posting up the next conference. Edited April 20 by John Kloehr typo 3 Quote
John Kloehr Posted April 20 Posted April 20 Seems like a good time to pause and assess the remaining petitions. I am not sure I have all of them, but it must be close to correct. Petition Categories Felon In Possession: 11 Five are new this week, plus an older one I recently learned about (has been in conference once). With Beaird now having cert, there are 11 remaining. One is scheduled for Friday, another for a later conference. This later one and three others (including the recently re-discovered) are possible holds pending the Hemani ruling. The Hemani ruling may apply to some as in addition to the firearm possession convictions, some where arrested with drugs at the time of firearm possession, or the predicate offense was a drug charge. One of the possible holds and five others are waiting on responses, they will come up in later conferences. Drug Users: 6 Assume these are all now on hold pending Hemani. The petitioner in one of the cases has filed a motion to dismiss. No idea why, odd to go all the way to the Supreme Court and then say "never mind." Gun and Magazine Bans: 5 All will be back again next week. These are the most watched cases in the queue. Also potential waiting on if the DC court will take the magazine case en banc or if not, will the District will bring a petition to this court. Young Adult 18-20 Prohibition: 5 Not clear why these are not moving. They have all been to conference months ago. While people restrictions, can not see how Hemani might apply. They are all law-abiding plaintiffs. Wolford, a place restriction, is even less relevant. Courts Marshal Lifetime Ban: 1 PLCAA: 1 Licensing: 1 Each of these three is waiting responses, so no scheduling expected at this time. Total: 30 That is all that is left, though some new ones do show up. Of these thirty, at least ten (and possible fifteen) are GVR candidates pending Hemani. Final note, Beaird was on my list as a 2A case. Since cert only applies to the sentencing enhancement and not to any of the other claims under 922, it is technically no longer a 2A case. Will still track and report arguments and the final ruling as if it still was. 3 Quote
Subdeacon Joe Posted April 20 Posted April 20 @John Kloehr Thank you for laboring like a Stakhanovite keeping us updated on what's happening at SCOTUS. Also for your analysis of decisions and dicta. 5 Quote
John Kloehr Posted April 21 Posted April 21 The next conference this week is on 4/24. It is a full day conference. Orders the following Monday. Cases (a short list this time) up for discussion this week are: Felon In Possession 25-1001 US v Doucet Possible future Hemani GVR as the predicate offense was a drug crime (cultivation). A clue for this will be if cert is neither granted nor denied, and it is not rescheduled either. OTOH, cultivation is a greater offense than use or addiction... Of note is not only did the government not file a response or even a waiver of response, it simply did not respond. Nor did the court request a response. So I lean towards denial. AWB/Magazine Bans 25-153 12/5,12, 1/9,16,23, 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17 Gator’s v Washington 25-198 11/21*, 12/5,12, 1/9,16,23, 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17 Duncan v Bonta 25-238 12/5,12, 1/9,16,23, 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17 Viramontes v Cook County 25-421 1/23*, 2/20 ,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17 NAGR v Lamont 25-566 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17 Grant v Higgins (CT) Pins and needles... Back on Monday with any actions. 1 Quote
Subdeacon Joe Posted April 21 Posted April 21 1 hour ago, John Kloehr said: 25-198 11/21*, 12/5,12, 1/9,16,23, 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17 Duncan v Bonta Will get kicked down the road again. And again.... And again.... Quote
John Kloehr Posted April 21 Posted April 21 (edited) 56 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said: Will get kicked down the road again. And again.... And again.... I'll be OK if these questions get kicked to the next court term, it will still be within Kavanaugh's statement respecting denial in Snopes. I hope these do not get "Snoped" as I do not see better cases coming in the future. At most, I can see a couple more getting added before arguments next term, those have nearly completed the pipeline (DC, ...). Others have not yet really started (Rhode Island, Virginia, ...). Those would take years without SCOTUS intervention. I can not see how any further percolation in other cases will benefit the court compared to the 5 under petition now. In particular, Duncan for magazines could not be more developed and complete. There is no better candidate for a magazine case. Gators (also magazines) would likely be held in favor of Duncan. NAGR v Lamont will not likely be a lead case, it is at an interlocutory (early) stage but does deal with both AR15s and magazines. Viramontes is a little more developed than NAGR, but only challenges an AR15 ban. Same with Grant, also a rifle ban. Some discussion by pundits suggests the court is trying to decide on one rifle and one magazine case and perhaps even consolidate them, or to instead select NAGR for both questions at one go. Any choice in these options would be positive. Especially when compared to waiting for different future cases. Pushing to the next court term is a real possibility, the remaining slots for argument in this term are filling up. The court may also be waiting for developments in DC and the 3rd circuit. Can figure a good month before DC decides to take the magazine question en banc; if it does not, then the split stands and cert on magazines at SCOTUS is more likely. To complicate this, the 3rd may be waiting on decisions in Wolford and Hemani before ruling on its cases, so it could be months. Just mainly do not want to see any of the ban cases get "Snoped." Edited April 21 by John Kloehr removed editing artifact 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted April 21 Posted April 21 1 hour ago, Subdeacon Joe said: "SNOPED?" A reference to Snope v Brown, an AR15 ban case from last term denied certiorari. Justice Kavanaugh authored an opinion respecting denial (and Thomas wrote a dissent to the denial). See:: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-203_5ie6.pdf#:~:text=JUSTICE,of certiorari. These opinions included: " Opinions from other Courts of Appeals should assist this Court’s ultimate decision making on the AR–15 issue. Additional petitions for certiorari will likely be before this Court shortly and, in my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two. " Thomas further wrote in his dissent (citations omitted): " It is difficult to see how Maryland’s categorical prohibition on AR–15s passes muster under this framework. To start, AR–15s are clearly “Arms” under the Second Amendment’s plain text. In Heller, we held that the term “Arms” in this context covers all “‘[w]eapons of offence, or armour of defence.’”; ... (explaining that “Arms” include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another’”). Thus, “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” AR–15s fall squarely within this category. " 3 Quote
John Kloehr Posted April 24 Posted April 24 (edited) Hemani update. From letter issued by D. John Sauer to the Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1234/405137/20260423102456496_24-1234 Hemani Letter.pdf " I write to inform the Court ... the Acting Attorney General issued a final order concerning the scheduling of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act, ... In the government’s view, the final order does not affect the proper resolution of this case. ... Even under the final order, moreover, respondent’s marijuana would remain a Schedule I controlled substance because it was neither incorporated into an FDA-approved drug product nor covered by a state medical marijuana license. ... " Edited April 24 by John Kloehr Typo 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted April 27 Posted April 27 Orders from today, Monday 4/27 from 4/24 conference. Cert denied in the following case: Felon In Possession 25-1001 US v Doucet This denial suggests the Hemani ruling will be narrow as to personal use, not broad to cover cultivation as a non-violent felony. No action on the hardware cases. The next conference is Friday. I will post scheduled cases some time tomorrow. There will be at least one case (felon in possession, it was previously scheduled. Also will start checking on Wednesdays for any rulings from Wolford or Hemani. 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted April 27 Posted April 27 1 hour ago, John Kloehr said: The next conference is Friday. I will post scheduled cases some time tomorrow. The court clerk acted sooner than I expected. The next conference this week is on 5/1. It is a full day conference and also the last full day conference of the court year. Orders the following Monday. There will then be a one week break, followed by the final 7 split-day conferences of the session on Thursdays. Cases (a short list again) up for discussion this week are: Felon In Possession 25-7154 Taber v US I see nothing in the petition to distinguish it from other petitions previously denied cert in this category. The government waived response unless requested, the court has not requested a response. AWB/Magazine Bans 25-153 12/5,12, 1/9,16,23, 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24 Gator’s v Washington 25-198 11/21*, 12/5,12, 1/9,16,23, 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24 Duncan v Bonta 25-238 12/5,12, 1/9,16,23, 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24 Viramontes v Cook County 25-421 1/23*, 2/20 ,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24 NAGR v Lamont 25-566 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24 Grant v Higgins (CT) All back again. Pins and needles... Back Wednesday if there are any rulings. Otherwise, Back on Monday with any orders and a few other notes on open cases. Quote
John Kloehr Posted April 27 Posted April 27 (edited) A side note for recent important events separate from assorted "housekeeping" updates, the DC court is taking its magazine ban case en banc. The previous ruling is vacated. All prior arguments disregarded, all parties and amici to file new briefs. Per Curium ruling for this outlines up to 81 days from date of ruling to file all documents and written arguments. Bonta has filed a letter regarding this development in Duncan: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-198/405187/20260423145932919_25-198 Duncan Letter re Benson.pdf So for the moment, there is no circuit split on magazine bans. Edited April 27 by John Kloehr Delete duplicate link 1 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted May 2 Posted May 2 (edited) A side note I came across from looking at some precedents and background of the 3rd circuit for a post in another thread. I always found the phrase "one step too many" in Bruen odd since it did seem to replace a previous lower court two-step test with a new two-step test. Perhaps better to say it clarified the test in Heller. Certainly, the "new" clarified first step was intended as a simple threshold question. And Bruen did clearly reject means-end scrutiny as the second step, explicitly stating the test is historical analysis to identify a relevant tradition. I found this part in Range v Attorney General has a great explanation for the chosen phrase in Bruen (condensed, with my bold): " In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected with militia service. In view of that right, the Court held unconstitutional a District of Columbia law that banned handguns and required other “firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times.” It reached that conclusion after scrutinizing the text of the Second Amendment and deducing that it “codified a pre-existing right.” The Heller opinion did not apply intermediate or strict scrutiny. In fact, it did not apply means- end scrutiny at all. But in response to Justice Breyer’s dissent, the Court noted in passing that the challenged law would be unconstitutional “[u]nder any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights.” Many courts around the country, including this one, overread that passing comment to require a two-step approach in Second Amendment cases, utilizing means-end scrutiny at the second step. We did so for the first time in Marzzarella, and we continued down that road for over a decade. Bruen rejected the two-step approach as “one step too many.” The Supreme Court declared:“Heller and McDonald do not support applying means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context.” Instead, those cases teach “that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.” And “[o]nly if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’” Id. (quoting Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal. " So the lower courts took a piece of dicta and used it instead of the Heller test. Even today, those courts call the new method the Bruen test, generally refusing to even acknowledge Heller outlined it first. The Range case involved a lifetime ban on firearms possession due to a conviction for food stamp fraud. Range made full restitution plus costs and fines, completed probation, and never served a day in jail. The crime he was convicted of was a misdemeanor. While not a felony, it did have a potential penalty of up to five years incarceration. The 3rd circuit court of appeals found the lifetime ban unconstitutional as applied to him. Here is the full Range decision: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/212835pen.pdf Edited May 2 by John Kloehr clarity 3 Quote
Subdeacon Joe Posted May 2 Posted May 2 1 hour ago, John Kloehr said: It reached that conclusion after scrutinizing the text of the Second Amendment and deducing that it “codified a pre-existing right.” Good gawd! How much "scrutiny" does it need? It says "the right." Just like in other Amendments that use "the right." Any third grader can easily parse it to see clearly that the right must exist before it can be protected. Too many people think that somehow the federal government sprang into being ex nihilo, called the Constitutional Convention, and handed down the Constitution and in its Beneficence bestowed "rights" on the peasants. 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted May 4 Posted May 4 (edited) Orders from today, Monday 5/4 from 5/1 conference. Cert denied in the following case: Felon In Possession 25-7154 Taber v US No action on the hardware cases. There will now be a one week break. Then the last seven conferences of this term, all on Thursdays. All are split conferences mixed with non-argument sessions. The next conference is on Thursday 5/14, I'll post the cases for it a few days before it. Will continue checking on Wednesdays for any rulings from Wolford or Hemani. Edited May 4 by John Kloehr 3 Quote
John Kloehr Posted May 4 Posted May 4 (edited) Drug case: 25-6842 Gibbs v Florida Dismissed at plaintiff (Gibbs) request. Not a denial. Edited May 4 by John Kloehr 3 Quote
John Kloehr Posted May 4 Posted May 4 Another case denied cert today which was not on my radar. 25-775 Westforth Sports v. Chicago Not a 2A case, it was a commerce clause challenge. https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-775.html " QUESTION PRESENTED Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution allow a state to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident retail seller of legal, non-defective, easily- transportable products based on the seller’s foreseeability that some such products may, through the agency of third parties over whom the seller has no control, be transported into the forum state without any direction from the seller? " A gun shop not in Chicago or even in Illinois accused of straw sales due to the number of guns recovered in Chicago. The store is no longer in business. 3 Quote
John Kloehr Posted May 4 Posted May 4 (edited) 1 hour ago, John Kloehr said: Another case denied cert today which was not on my radar. 25-775 Westforth Sports v. Chicago Not a 2A case, it was a commerce clause challenge. https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-775.html " QUESTION PRESENTED Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution allow a state to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident retail seller of legal, non-defective, easily- transportable products based on the seller’s foreseeability that some such products may, through the agency of third parties over whom the seller has no control, be transported into the forum state without any direction from the seller? " A gun shop not in Chicago or even in Illinois accused of straw sales due to the number of guns recovered in Chicago. The store is no longer in business. Dug a bit deeper. This case is at an early stage in the lower court. As such, a denial is not unexpected. SCOTUS prefers fully-developed cases. It might return as either a 2A case directly or as a PLCAA case. This will take a term or two. A curiosity item is if the store, when it was open, was very close to both Illinois and specifically Chicago. There is evidence stores nearest the southern border have a higher incidence of guns ending up in Mexico. If this store was simply the most convenient for trafficking into Illinois, that traffic will just move to the next nearest convenient store. Edited May 4 by John Kloehr Otto took a dump in my post 4 Quote
John Kloehr Posted May 11 Posted May 11 The conference this week is on Thursday, 5/14. It is a split day conference. This and the remaining 6 conferences are split with non-argument sessions, all on consecutive Thursdays. Orders the following Monday. Cases up for discussion this week are: Felon In Possession 25-935 US v Mitchell US asks hold and GVR based on Hemani 25-1190 Adamiak v US Yes, THAT Adamiak! 25-7184 Beaubrun v US 25-7200 Tonge v US 25-7211 Cruz v US 25-7214 Jeffery v US 25-7218 Martin v Florida AWB/Magazine Bans 25-153 12/5,12, 1/9,16,23, 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24. 5/1 Gator’s v Washington 25-198 11/21*, 12/5,12, 1/9,16,23, 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24, 5/1 Duncan v Bonta 25-238 12/5,12, 1/9,16,23, 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24, 5/1 Viramontes v Cook County 25-421 1/23*, 2/20 ,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24, 5/1 NAGR v Lamont 25-566 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24, 5/1 Grant v Higgins (CT) All just added to the schedule today. Back Wednesday if there are any rulings. Otherwise, Back on Monday with any orders and a few other notes on open cases. Separate Note Added another case to my tracking: 25-831 CS v McCrumb This is a 1st Amendment case, I think it is the young girl who wore a "Come and take it" hat for hat day at school. Not yet scheduled Summary Felon In Possession: 17 5/14: 7, 5/21: 3, Awaiting response: 5, Hold?: 2 Drug Users: 5 Presumed hold pending Hemani Gun and Magazine Bans: 5 Many conferences Young Adult 18-20 Prohibition: 5 No movement Courts Marshal Lifetime Ban 1 Response filed PLCAA: 1 Response filed Licensing: 1 Response requested due 5/15 Default Property Swap: 1 Response due 5/22 Free Speech: 1 Response filed, not scheduled Total: 37 4 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.