Subdeacon Joe Posted May 11 Posted May 11 Once again, thank you for your labors to bring us this information. And for presenting it in such an organized fashion. 5 Quote
Sedalia Dave Posted May 12 Posted May 12 18 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said: Once again, thank you for your labors to bring us this information. And for presenting it in such an organized fashion. +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 4 Quote
John Kloehr Posted May 13 Posted May 13 A maybe event, and no idea if it will be 2A news. From ScotusBlog: https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/05/more-interim-docket-action/ " The court has indicated that it may release opinions on Thursday, May 14, at 10 a.m. EDT. " Opinions will post here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/25 Quote
John Kloehr Posted May 13 Posted May 13 50 minutes ago, John Kloehr said: A maybe event... Now looks confirmed, still no idea what case or cases: https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/05/announcement-of-opinions-for-thursday-may-14/ 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted May 14 Posted May 14 16 hours ago, John Kloehr said: Now looks confirmed, still no idea what case or cases: https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/05/announcement-of-opinions-for-thursday-may-14/ Two opinions issued, neither related to the 2nd. 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted May 14 Posted May 14 (edited) Very rare for a case to get rehearing. This is the reciprocity case where the licensed traveler from Virginia could not have got a permit for Maryland due the unconstitutional scheme in place at the time. Added back to tracking. Will be in conference for rehearing towards the end of the month. 25-5961 4/17 Gardner v Maryland Cert Denied On edit: This event discussed by William Kirk, Washington Gun Law. Edited May 14 by John Kloehr 2 Quote
El Chapo Posted May 15 Posted May 15 On 3/15/2025 at 9:00 AM, Blackwater 53393 said: Perhaps if we flood the court with so many Second Amendment cases that there is no room for anything else, we can convince them to go to work and settle them once and for all! Over 90% of the cases where certiorarari is requested are denied. None (at least not that resulted in an opinion) were accepted between 1939 and 2008. Entire generations came and went without a single case making it there. I don't think that strategy worked too well, because many tried. I looked up Jamond Rush, and we should all be thankful that (what looks like) a drug trafficker might vindicate the rights of all of us. 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted May 17 Posted May 17 My post tomorrow with any conference findings (up, down, or nothing burger) will be late tomorrow. I just finished shooting the AK Masters competition, once again demonstrating my full achievement of mediocrity as a competitor; did have a blast though. Decided to go by PSA tomorrow to try a Jakl and then will still have some hours driving to get home. Just want those who look for it to not wonder if I stroked out or gave up posting tracking updates. It is neither of those at this time. 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted May 18 Posted May 18 (edited) Orders from today, Monday 5/18 from 5/14 conference. Cert denied in the following cases: Felon In Possession 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 Sorry to see Adamiak not get cert. Hope he asks for and gets rehearing like Gardner, and hope they both succeed. The others had only the usual chances (slim and none). They can try their next shot with the rights restoration process. No action on the hardware cases. The next conference is this Thursday 5/21, I'll post the cases for it tomorrow. I did check one hardware ban case, it is already relisted for then. Possible release of an opinion on some case Thursday. I'll only post on it if it is 2A related. Edited May 18 by John Kloehr Otto! 1 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted May 19 Posted May 19 (edited) The conference this week is on Thursday, 5/21. It is a split day conference. Orders the following Tuesday (due to the holiday). Cases up for discussion this week are: Felon In Possession 25-7173 Sowe v US 25-7175 Taylor v US 25-7241 McEwan 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. 5/1,14 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, 5/1,14 Duncan v Bonta 25-238 12/5,12, 1/9,16,23, 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24, 5/1,14 Viramontes v Cook County 25-421 1/23*, 2/20 ,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24, 5/1,14 NAGR v Lamont 25-566 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24, 5/1,14 Grant v Higgins (CT) Note: Six new 922(g) cases filed in the last week, replacing the six denied last conference, total case count stands at 46. Of these six new petitions, one of them has a response due date after the last scheduled conference. The respondents in various cases pending responses may also file for an extension of time to respond. Conversely, respondents can file before the deadline... Point being some of these cases are likely to go into the next court session, as will Beaird (granted cert, but will not be heard this term). Nor will any case granted cert now get heard this year. Edited May 19 by John Kloehr 1 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted May 20 Posted May 20 Ink on this one is still drying: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6756/attachments/original/1776782996/2026.04.20_Cert_Petition.pdf?1776782996 Novotny v Moore, suit against Maryland for basically the same vampire rule in Hawaii currently awaiting an opinion in Wolford. Expectation would be one conference, then GVR when Wolford is published. But the court term will end before the window closes for the state to respond to this petition, so this will not likely move forward until next term. 2 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted May 20 Posted May 20 36 minutes ago, John Kloehr said: Ink on this one is still drying: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6756/attachments/original/1776782996/2026.04.20_Cert_Petition.pdf?1776782996 Novotny v Moore, suit against Maryland for basically the same vampire rule in Hawaii currently awaiting an opinion in Wolford. Expectation would be one conference, then GVR when Wolford is published. But the court term will end before the window closes for the state to respond to this petition, so this will not likely move forward until next term. Correction, looks like it is the state is appealing its loss as to private property. FPC might respond soon enough for a chance of inclusion in conference this term. Otherwise, same ultimate result is likely, GVR with Wolford. The court did find the vampire rule unconstitutional as to private property open to the public, also found the law was constitutional as to parks*. Should Wolford apply to parks, then GVR would be a benefit to the 2A community. Should Wolford only apply to stores and gas stations public businesses, then denial would close it out. * Also constitutional for schools, medical providers, government buildings, ... 1 3 Quote
John Kloehr Posted May 20 Posted May 20 2 hours ago, John Kloehr said: Correction, looks like it is the state is appealing its loss as to private property. FPC might respond soon enough for a chance of inclusion in conference this term. Otherwise, same ultimate result is likely, GVR with Wolford. The court did find the vampire rule unconstitutional as to private property open to the public, also found the law was constitutional as to parks*. Should Wolford apply to parks, then GVR would be a benefit to the 2A community. Should Wolford only apply to stores and gas stations public businesses, then denial would close it out. * Also constitutional for schools, medical providers, government buildings, ... And a little more info, the case is also tied to a cross motion for cert, which should show up in a couple days. 24A1140 Novotny v Moore, consolidated with Kipke 25-1206 Moore v Kipke 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted May 25 Posted May 25 Waiting for notification to the court of the 2nd Circuit decision in Christian v James. https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/24-2847; 25-384_complete_opn.pdf The court did find the vampire rule unconstitutional, did uphold the park ban. " Accordingly, we AFFIRM the permanent injunction against the Private Property Provision, as applied to private property open to the public, and AFFIRM the judgment in favor of the State on the Public Parks Provision. " 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted May 26 Posted May 26 12 hours ago, John Kloehr said: Waiting for notification to the court of the 2nd Circuit decision in Christian v James. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1046/409666/20260522151734461_24-1046 Motion and Supplemental Brief.pdf 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted May 26 Posted May 26 Getting to be a rinse and repeat pattern. Orders from today, Tuesday 5/26 from 5/21 conference. Cert denied in the following cases: Felon In Possession 25-7173 Sowe v US 25-7175 Taylor v US 25-7241 McEwan v Florida No action on the hardware cases. The next conference is this Thursday 5/28 (5 to go), I'll post the cases for it tomorrow. Possible release of an opinion on some case Thursday. I'll only post on it if it is 2A related. 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted May 27 Posted May 27 The conference this week is on Thursday, 5/28. It is a split day conference. Orders the following Monday. Cases up for discussion this week are: Reciprocity 25-5961 4/17 Gardner v Maryland (Denied after 1st hearing 4/17, re-hearing) Felon In Possession None this week, will be more next week. AWB/Magazine Bans 25-153 12/5,12, 1/9,16,23, 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24. 5/1,14,21 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, 5/1,14,21 Duncan v Bonta 25-238 12/5,12, 1/9,16,23, 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24, 5/1,14,21 Viramontes v Cook County 25-421 1/23*, 2/20 ,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24, 5/1,14,21 NAGR v Lamont 25-566 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24, 5/1,14,21 Grant v Higgins (CT) 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted June 1 Posted June 1 (edited) Rinse and repeat continues... Orders from today, Monday, 6/1 from 5/28 conference. Cert denied in the following (rehearing) case: Reciprocity 25-5961 4/17 Gardner v Maryland No action on the hardware cases. The next conference is this Thursday 6/4 (4 to go), I'll post the cases for it tomorrow. Edited June 1 by John Kloehr typo 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted June 2 Posted June 2 (edited) The conference this week is on Thursday, 6/4. It is a split day conference. Orders the following Monday. A few petitions this week step out of the usual categories so I'm adding a little context for them. Cases up for discussion this week are: Felon In Possession 25-1029 US v Cockerham Possible Hemani GVR 25-7216 Storey v US 25-7219 Jackson v US 25-7244 Yanez v US 25-7248 Hensley v US By my count, there are 25 active petitions in this category. Several have no movement in some time and at least 3 of these are likely holding for GVR post-Hemani. The government has recently started waiving response early on new petitions, suggesting confidence the Court will deny most cases. 11 petitions are awaiting response. Any case granted cert now will not be heard this term, I count 4 in this category which will not even go to conference this term unless the government waives response very early. Involuntary Commitment 25-7330 Gould v US Yes, he was involuntarily committed for a short time. He was also involuntarily evaluated at least 3 times prior to this. While lacking other details, there was never an explicit finding of dangerousness. 2-1/2 years later, he had a shotgun at home, so he was prosecuted for the gun crime as a prohibited person. The lower courts did not do a Bruen analysis, they held long-standing laws are presumptively constitutional. The government waived its right to respond to this petition. Court Martial Factual Insufficiency 25-742 2/20 Zhong v US Zhong got a bad conduct discharge. As a result, he lost his firearms rights. He claims insufficient facts to support the conviction, the government claims no authority to review the claim. Zhong asks SCOTUS to find (at minimum) the military does have authority to review the case. PLCAA 25-1026 NSSF v James A per curium opinion in favor of plaintiffs citing Smith and Wesson would be the best case and fastest outcome. It would also end proceedings for similar cases in lower courts. Free Speech 25-831 CS v McCrumb This is the 3rd grade school girl who wore a "Come and Take It" hat for hat day. AWB/Magazine Bans 25-153 12/5,12, 1/9,16,23, 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24. 5/1,14,21,28 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, 5/1,14,21,28 Duncan v Bonta 25-238 12/5,12, 1/9,16,23, 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24, 5/1,14,21,28 Viramontes v Cook County 25-421 1/23*, 2/20 ,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24, 5/1,14,21,28 NAGR v Lamont 25-566 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24, 5/1,14,21,28 Grant v Higgins (CT) They're all back again... Post Certiorari Waiting on Wolford and Hemani opinions. Will check for them Thursday. An update on Beaird v US (25-5343). Depending on party, all filings are due 6/30 (petitioner and respondents) or 8/25 (court-appointed amicus). Edited June 2 by John Kloehr Formatting, typo, and remove petition not in conference 4 Quote
John Kloehr Posted June 3 Posted June 3 The PLCAA case is rescheduled. Will not be in conference tomorrow. 25-1026 NSSF v James 3 Quote
John Kloehr Posted June 6 Posted June 6 On 5/20/2026 at 1:34 PM, John Kloehr said: And a little more info, the case is also tied to a cross motion for cert, which should show up in a couple days. 24A1140 Novotny v Moore, consolidated with Kipke 25-1206 Moore v Kipke It looks to me like these are now merged by plaintiff petition as: 25-1324 Novotny v Moore I expect GVR or per curium rulings with Wolford as the laws and issue are indistinguishable. 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted June 8 Posted June 8 Rinse and repeat continues... Orders from today, Monday, 6/8 from 6/4 conference. Cert denied in the following cases: Felon In Possession 25-1029 US v Cockerham Possible Hemani GVR 25-7219 Jackson v US 25-7244 Yanez v US 25-7248 Hensley v US Storey had no conference action, response previously requested. Will try to take a closer look at Cockerham. Denial of the government petition may be a good clue as to how Hemani will come down. Court Martial Factual Insufficiency 25-742 2/20 Zhong v US Free Speech 25-831 CS v McCrumb AWB/Magazine Bans No action on the hardware cases. The next conference is this Thursday 6/11 (3 to go), I'll post the cases for it tomorrow. Quote
John Kloehr Posted June 8 Posted June 8 Wolford update from today's orders: " The motion of petitioners to file a supplemental brief after argument is granted. " The court will consider this brief. From: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1046/409746/20260526105212317_24-1046 Motion and Supplemental Brief.pdf " I. THE FOURTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND MARYLAND’S PRIVATE PROPERTY DEFAULT RULE UNCONSTITUIONAL At issue in Kipke was Maryland’s default rule presumptively barring carry on private property without the prior permission of the owner or a sign allowing such carry. [...] That statute is virtually identical to Hawaii’s [...]. The Fourth Circuit unanimously held that “Maryland’s restriction on bringing firearms onto private property held open to the public without express consent is unconstitutional.” " And: " II. THE SECOND CIRCUIT HAS FOUND NEW YORK’S PRIVATE PROPERTY DEFAULT RULE UNCONSTITUIONAL In Christian, the Second Circuit reached the same conclusion on an appeal from a final judgment with respect to the presumptive ban on private property enacted by New York. " 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted June 8 Posted June 8 (edited) 6 hours ago, John Kloehr said: 25-1029 US v Cockerham Possible Hemani GVR Will try to take a closer look at Cockerham. Denial of the government petition may be a good clue as to how Hemani will come down. Did a quick skim of the petition and response. I'm agreeing with the response showing Hemani may not have any bearing on Cockerham. This is also the kind of case where bad facts can make for bad law. I'll present the events in the order they occurred. Cockerham did not pay court-ordered child support. Upon conviction, he was sentenced to a couple years, suspended, and made full restitution. He did not serve any time in jail. He completed parole without incident. The conviction did ban him from owning firearms. Then the facts take a left turn. He was driving a vehicle without plates, a drug unit (LE) pulled him over. During questioning, he admitted to having a firearm in the vehicle (he had two, meh). He also admitted to having the disqualifying conviction. He broke away from the officers and ran, discarding a bag containing meth. He tripped and fell, arrested. He was convicted for being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. But Hemani was convicted of possession as a drug user, not for firearms possession. Cockerham preserved his right of appeal for life-time disarmament for a non-violent felon. Hemani, per the government argument, was only subject to a temporary ban under a different section of 922. The 5th circuit agreed the section of 922 applying to Cockerham as a non-violent offender was unconstitutional as applied to him. This Supreme Court filing is the government wanting a do-over. Note well, this case is all for a gun charge as a result of a predicate offense, and nothing to do with resisting arrest, evading, and drug possession. Those are the bad facts. Depending on what the government might have charged Cockerham with the second time, he might still face disarmament, the government only charged the firearm possession. Interesting parallel to Hemani, who was charged for personal use and not dealing, or any of the other allegations. I am siding with cert denial in this case for the limited question before the court. Yet like with Hemani, if the government does have more to charge an offender with, it should do so. But this has nothing to do with the proceedings in Hemani, and Hemani is not applicable to Cockerham. Cockerham got a win today. Last chance for him to not use (or potentially deal) meth in the future, and last chance to never again run from the police. Edited June 8 by John Kloehr Otto 3 Quote
John Kloehr Posted June 8 Posted June 8 (edited) The conference this week is on Thursday, 6/11. It is a split day conference. Orders the following Monday. There are 3 weekly conferences remaining. Petitions in conference this week are: Felon In Possession - none - There are: 13 petitions in this category scheduled for next week. 3 other petitions which could be scheduled 3 are still waiting responses 3 will likely GVR with Hemani -- 21 petitions remaining At least 4 will not conference until next term AWB/Magazine Bans 25-153 Gator’s v Washington 12/5,12, 1/9,16,23, 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24. 5/1,14,21,28, 6/4 25-198 Duncan v Bonta 11/21*, 12/5,12, 1/9,16,23, 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24, 5/1,14,21,28, 6/4 25-238 Viramontes v Cook County 12/5,12, 1/9,16,23, 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24, 5/1,14,21,28, 6/4 25-421 NAGR v Lamont 1/23*, 2/20 ,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24, 5/1,14,21,28, 6/4 25-566 Grant v Higgins (CT) 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24, 5/1,14,21,28, 6/4 They're all back again... Changed the layout because the previous conference list was too long. PLCAA 25-1026 6/4* NSSF v James Rescheduled from last week Licensing 25-1261 Corbett v Hochul A second petition scheduled for next week presents the same question, the state waived response to both petitions.. Edited June 8 by John Kloehr 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted June 9 Posted June 9 (edited) Delete Edited June 9 by John Kloehr ignore post Quote
John Kloehr Posted June 15 Posted June 15 Rinse and repeat continues... Orders from today, Monday, 6/15 from 6/11 conference. Cert denied in the following cases: AWB/Magazine Bans No action on the hardware cases. PLCAA 25-1026 6/4* NSSF v James Disappointing denial, but understandable. This suit was a pre-enforcement challenge, the lower court dismissed it at the preliminary stage and appeals courts did not grant review. SCOTUS tends not to take cases at an early stage when not fully developed. Also no gun industry member is under direct suit by the state using this specific law. Licensing 25-1261 Corbett v Hochul This was a challenge to New York's 18 hour training requirement for a carry permit. At a lower level, it requested clarification of "footnote 9" and the presumption of constitutionality for shall-issue permitting schemes. The next conference is this Thursday 6/18 (2 to go). Looks like most of the cases for Thursday were scheduled some time ago, will give some time for the hardware cases to re-list before posting the list. 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted June 15 Posted June 15 (edited) The conference this week is on Thursday, 6/18. It is a split day conference. Orders the following Monday. This is the second to last weekly conference this term. Petitions in conference this week are: Felon In Possession 25-7313 Warren v US 25-7315 Sims v US 25-7331 Evans v US 25-7344 Goines v US 25-7359 Bland v US 25-7365 Rodriguez v US 25-7386 Leonard v US 25-7387 Crawford v US 25-7389 Flores v US 25-7391 Randall v US 25-7394 Simmons v US 25-7427 Pittman v US 25-7455 Lewis v US 25-7456 Telusme v US 25-7457 Williams v US 25-7458 Espindola v US This is 16 out the remaining 26 cases in this category. 2 more are already scheduled for next week. As usual, I also expect most get denied. And as usual, I expect a few more to get added to the backlog this week. Additionally there are: 3 other petitions which could be scheduled 3 are still waiting responses 3 will likely GVR with Hemani At least 4 will not conference until next term Involuntary Commitment Ban 25-7330 Gould v US I had listed this for the 6/4 conference. My error, it was not on that schedule. From that writeup: He was involuntarily committed for a short time. He was also involuntarily evaluated at least 3 times prior to this. While lacking other details, there was never an explicit finding of dangerousness. 2-1/2 years later, he had a shotgun at home, so he was prosecuted for the gun crime as a prohibited person. The lower courts did not do a Bruen analysis, they held long-standing laws are presumptively constitutional. The government waived its right to respond to this petition. Unlawful Presence 25-7298 Salazar v US Salazar entered the US illegally. He got a gun. He got caught with the gun. Other than illegal entry and firearms possession, no criminal history. He filed this SCOTUS petition, the government waived response. So why are we here? Because we can ask two questions. First, if the right as expressed in the 2nd is an inalienable right, then Salazar has that right. (Presented differently in the petition) Second, does asking if a person is a member of "the people" belong in Bruen's threshold test (aka step 1) or does it belong in the history and tradition analysis (aka step 2)? My sense is while he may not be part of "the people," he is "a person." So he has the right as it is a pre-existing right. Moving to the second question, the answer to the Bruen question is the test belongs in step 2. And then applying it, Salazar still loses; he at least needs to enter through the front door. Short cut will be to deny cert and wait for a better case to answer the second question. The government waived response. Licensing 25-6940 3/27 Johnson v New York The government waived response, SCOTUS requested response, filed, now scheduled. The plaintiff was convicted of carrying without a license, he could never have met the pre-Bruen "proper cause" requirement. This question presented is: Whether, or under what circumstances, individuals can be criminally prosecuted for failing to comply with a licensing scheme that contains a facially unconstitutional licensing standard? Storage Requirements 25-7447 Mitchell v Massachusetts From the filing: " Mitchell was charged with improper storage of a firearm [...]; assault and battery[...]; and assault and battery on a family member[...]. His arrest [he was in his back yard] and charges arose from a domestic incident at his home, to which the police were called. The police recovered a shotgun [in a bag on a bed]. The assault and battery charges were nolle prossed [state "unwilling to prosecute] before trial. " He was still convicted of the firearms charge. The state waived response to the petition. AWB/Magazine Bans 25-153 Gator’s v Washington 12/5,12, 1/9,16,23, 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24. 5/1,14,21,28, 6/4,11 25-198 Duncan v Bonta 11/21*, 12/5,12, 1/9,16,23, 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24, 5/1,14,21,28, 6/4,11 25-238 Viramontes v Cook County 12/5,12, 1/9,16,23, 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24, 5/1,14,21,28, 6/4,11 25-421 NAGR v Lamont 1/23*, 2/20 ,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24, 5/1,14,21,28, 6/4,11 25-566 Grant v Higgins (CT) 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24, 5/1,14,21,28, 6/4,11 They're all back again... Orders Monday, 6/22. Opinions for unspecified cases expected on conference day, 6/18. Edited June 15 by John Kloehr Clarity 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted June 21 Posted June 21 (edited) Finally posted my Hamani analysis in this breakout thread: https://forums.sassnet.com/index.php?/topic/403285-hemani-opinion-published/#findComment-4909794 Some other housekeeping; Orders from Thursday conference expected Monday Tuesday and Thursday are opinion days Thursday is also the last scheduled conference There is likely to be another conference, often referred to as a cleanup conference. This happens sometimes and the predictors (lots of remaining decisions and a significant amount of other unfinished business) make this likely. I am not sure if orders from the cleanup conference are issued soon after or held to the following Monday. The cleanup conference is when GVRs are likely processed but some could get published as soon as this Monday. There may even be an additional opinion day as there are about 20 remaining decisions to issue. Unless the court does a dump or two, they are not likely to all come out this week. And as always, the court does not announce how many or what opinions it will issue in advance, only that it will issue opinions. Once this year is final, I will post a summary of whatever is going to the next court term. Edited June 21 by John Kloehr 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted June 22 Posted June 22 Rinse and repeat continues... Orders from today, Monday, 6/22 from 6/18 conference. Cert denied in the following cases: Felon In Possession 25-7313 Warren v US 25-7315 Sims v US 25-7331 Evans v US 25-7344 Goines v US 25-7359 Bland v US 25-7365 Rodriguez v US 25-7386 Leonard v US 25-7387 Crawford v US 25-7389 Flores v US 25-7391 Randall v US 25-7394 Simmons v US 25-7427 Pittman v US 25-7455 Lewis v US 25-7456 Telusme v US 25-7457 Williams v US 25-7458 Espindola v US Involuntary Commitment Ban 25-7330 Gould v US Unlawful Presence 25-7298 Salazar v US Licensing 25-6940 3/27 Johnson v New York Storage Requirements 25-7447 Mitchell v Massachusetts AWB/Magazine Bans No action on the hardware cases. Final scheduled conference is Thursday. There may be one more added after that. The orders for these conferences may issue the usual following Monday, or sooner, or even later. Early hints suggest this is the cleanup conference. Opinions will issue Tuesday and Thursday this week. There may be one or more additional opinion days added. Back later tomorrow with the next case list and any other updates. 2 Quote
Subdeacon Joe Posted June 22 Posted June 22 LORDY!!! Are they waiting for Virginia Duncan to die of old age? Quote
John Kloehr Posted June 22 Posted June 22 38 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said: LORDY!!! Are they waiting for Virginia Duncan to die of old age? I think SCOTUS is waiting for the 3rd Circuit to rule in Cheeseman v Platkin. This is an AR-15 and LCM (>10 round) ban case. Cheeseman is a likely 2A win and will cause a circuit split. SCOTUS likes to get involved in splits. The 3rd is likely now only waiting for Wolford and is reviewing Hemani. The 3rd has some new justices leaning the court to the right and is expected to rule for the plaintiffs. So they need every chance to "get it right." The 3rd has another case waiting on Cheeseman. Koons v Platkin is on hold pending Cheeseman. It is a sensitive places challenge. Wolford will be very relevant to it. 2 Quote
Subdeacon Joe Posted June 22 Posted June 22 (Hyperbole upcoming) It's like standing between 2 mirrors...an endless regression into infinity. Because there will always be another case somewhere that the Court wants to wait on. Or so it seems to me. Quote
John Kloehr Posted June 22 Posted June 22 (edited) In another court, while on the subject of waiting. Duncan v Bonta is the gate to further proceedings of several 9th Circuit cases. Until this case has final disposition, nothing will happen in: Rupp v. Bonta - California's Assault Weapons Control Act Miller v. Bonta - California's assault weapons ban Fouts v. Bonta - California's restrictions on LCMs Cupp v. Bonta - Challenge to bans on LCMs Wiese v. Bonta - Challenge to LCM restrictions and related bans Edited June 22 by John Kloehr 3 Quote
Subdeacon Joe Posted June 22 Posted June 22 2 hours ago, John Kloehr said: In another court, while on the subject of waiting. Duncan v Bonta is the gate to further proceedings of several 9th Circuit cases. Until this case has final disposition, nothing will happen in: I wonder if that's why it keeps getting kicked down the road, to tie up other cases? 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.