John Kloehr Posted June 23 Posted June 23 (edited) The conference this week is on Thursday, 6/25. It is a split day conference. This is the last scheduled conference. Unless another conference is added soon, this is also the "cleanup" conference. GVRs typically happen in the cleanup conference and several of the cases below look like they will get GVRed. There are also some petitions scheduled which do not fit the GVR mold. Also, many petitions are denied at the cleanup conference. Conference orders normally issue the following Monday, orders from a cleanup conference may or may not follow the usual pattern. Thursday is also the next opinion day. An additional opinion day will likely be scheduled (12 remaining including Wolford). A final clue indicating this is the cleanup conference is an announcement the Supreme Court gift shop will close from Friday after the conference to Thursday the following week. Then the normal closure for the holiday and weekend means it will not open again until Monday, July 6. Petitions in conference this week are: Felon In Possession 25-935 5/14 US v Mitchell US asks hold and GVR after Hemani 25-5986 1/9 Richardson v US May be holding pending Hemani 25-7465 Bynes v Florida 25-7488 Torres v US The first two are clear Hemani GVR candidates, the second two are up for their first hearing. Of the last two, Torres (vandalism and ammunition possession where the predicate felonies) might be a candidate for GVR under Rahimi more than Hemani. Bynes is waiting on court requested response, so not sure why it is scheduled at all. Drug Users 25-372 1/9 Harris v US 24-1248 9/29*, 10/10, 10/17 US v Daniels 24-1249 9/29*, 10/10, 10/17 US v Sam 25-6008 2/20 Sanchez v US 25-6216 2/27 Nyandoro v US All five are clear 922(g)(3) GVR candidates under Hemani. Young Adults (18-20) 24-1185 9/29*, 11/14 NRA v Glass 24-1329 9/29*, 11/14 Paris v SAF 25-24 11/14 McCoy v ATF 25-132 11/14 WVCDL v ATF 25-5713 1/9 Picon v US My crystal ball is murky on these... Will they be denied to clear them off the docket? Will they get GVR under Hemani with instruction to test dangerousness of the group? Or even per curium opinions declaring them part of "the people," cases closed? 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, 6/4,11,18 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, 6/4,11,18 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, 6/4,11,18 25-421 NAGR v Lamont 1/23*, 2/20 ,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24, 5/1,14,21,28, 6/4,11,18 25-566 Grant v Higgins (CT) 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24, 5/1,14,21,28, 6/4,11,18 They're all back again... Orders might be Monday, 6/29, or sooner, or later. Opinions for unspecified cases expected on conference day, 6/25, and likely at least one other day TBD. Edited June 23 by John Kloehr Typo, formatting Quote
John Kloehr Posted June 23 Posted June 23 17 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said: I wonder if that's why it keeps getting kicked down the road, to tie up other cases? Would not surprise me for the 9th. Delay before deny is the visible pattern. 1 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted June 25 Posted June 25 (edited) Wolford v Lopez opinion issued. It is a 2A win. Separate discussion thread at: https://forums.sassnet.com/index.php?/topic/403570-wolford-v-lopez-win/ The opinion (have not read it yet): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1046_nmio.pdf Still not sure when the court term will officially end. Did learn today the chief will announce the last session at the close of the second-to-last session. Today, the marshal announced the next session will be on Monday. From these details, Monday will not be the last session. There are 8 remaining opinions to be issued, none are 2A. Today is the last currently scheduled conference, it is not clear if this is the cleanup conference, or if there will be another. Also not clear when orders will issue from it. Edited June 25 by John Kloehr 3 Quote
John Kloehr Posted June 26 Posted June 26 (edited) The clerk has added orders from yesterday's conference to the calendar on Monday at 9:30 AM. In other news... Letter filed by the Cheeseman v Platkin plaintiffs informs the 3rd Circuit of Wolford opinion: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6504/attachments/original/1782500538/2026.06.26_117_28(j)_Letter.pdf?1782500538 It may be what the 3rd Circuit has been waiting for, guidance on getting the test right. I like how the plaintiffs used Jackson's quote: " Contrary to New Jersey’s argument that “the common-use analysis is part of the Court’s threshold inquiry ... , Wolford makes clear that such considerations “are out of place at Bruen’s first step. ... New Jersey’s argument effectively poses the question to this Court of whether parties “can smuggle additional limits, drawn from our regulatory tradition into the plain-text stage of the inquiry,” but “[t]he answer is and always has been no.” Id. at *14 n.1 (Barrett, J., concurring); ... As Justice Jackson made plain in her dissent, applying Wolford requires that “at step one, courts must look only to the ‘plain text’ of the Second Amendment.” Wolford, at *26 (Jackson, J., dissenting). " This does put an end to all the qualifiers used by various courts. Common Use. For self defense. Any way to change the outcome to "does not even implicate the 2A" at the threshold test when it otherwise clearly does. I'm sure with a bit of poking around, many more cases will soon have new filings. Edited June 27 by John Kloehr formatting 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted June 29 Posted June 29 Before getting to today's orders (working through it), need to introduce another case from this term. Hunter v US, from the 5th Circuit, is a non-2A criminal case. From SCOTUSblog: " Holding An agreement not to appeal a sentence is unenforceable when it would result in a miscarriage of justice — meaning, when it would leave in place the kind of egregious error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute. Judgment Vacated And Remanded, 8-1, in an opinion by Elena Kagan on Jun 18, 2026. Justice Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson. Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Alito and Barrett. Barrett wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion. " Also of note here is the liberals and conservatives do not always vote together. This case has a very different mix of concurrences. 1 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted June 29 Posted June 29 (edited) Some rinse and repeat continues, some petitions have resolution (denials and GVRs). Orders from today, Monday, 6/29 from 6/25 conference. Felon In Possession Denied: 25-935 5/14 US v Mitchell US asks hold and GVR after Hemani 25-7488 Torres v US GVR per Hunter v US: 25-5986 1/9 Richardson v US May be holding pending Hemani No action: 25-7465 Bynes v Florida Bynes is still waiting on court requested response, so not sure why it was scheduled at all. Torres denied as most of these cases are. Mitchell wins under Hemani and is done. Richardson gets another chance to plead his case. Drug Users Denied: 24-1248 9/29*, 10/10, 10/17 US v Daniels 24-1249 9/29*, 10/10, 10/17 US v Sam 25-6008 2/20 Sanchez v US GVR per US v Hemani: 25-372 1/9 Harris v US GVR per Hunter v US 25-6218 2/27 Nyandoro v US Daniels and Sam had won their cases in the past, the government wanted a do-over. SCOTUS says "no." Daniels and Sam win and are done. Sanchez was a regular user of THC. At the time of his arrest in public while in possession of a firearm, he was also under the influence. So Sanchez loses and is done. Harris and Nyandoro get another chance to plead their cases. Young Adults (18-20) No action. AWB/Magazine Bans No action. There is still uncertainty if this was the last conference. Additional orders may still come out until the term is officially closed. Additional decisions expected tomorrow, none are 2A cases. I'll check every now and then until the term is officially over. And I have another post right after this one. Edited June 29 by John Kloehr 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted June 29 Posted June 29 (edited) New conference today, 6/29. No idea when any orders will issue. This does not show up on the SCOTUSblog calendar. I found it on these dockets while cleaning up and updating my notes. Petitions in conference are: Young Adults (18-20) 24-1185 9/29*, 11/14, 6/25 NRA v Glass 24-1329 9/29*, 11/14, 6/25 Paris v SAF 25-24 11/14, 6/25 McCoy v ATF 25-132 11/14, 6/25 WVCDL v ATF 25-5713 1/9, 6/25 Picon v US 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, 6/4,11,18,25 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, 6/4,11,18,25 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, 6/4,11,18,25 25-421 NAGR v Lamont 1/23*, 2/20 ,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24, 5/1,14,21,28, 6/4,11,18,25 25-566 Grant v Higgins (CT) 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24, 5/1,14,21,28, 6/4,11,18,25 Edited June 29 by John Kloehr 3 Quote
John Kloehr Posted June 29 Posted June 29 (edited) SCOTUSblog just added orders to the calendar for tomorrow morning, 6/30 @ 9:30 AM. Edited June 29 by John Kloehr fat fingered the numbers 2 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted June 29 Posted June 29 2 hours ago, John Kloehr said: SCOTUSblog just added orders to the calendar for tomorrow morning, 6/30 @ 9:30 AM. And now the blog calendar only shows opinions at 10 AM... Per curiums? I'm used to those being in orders (at the end after grants and denials). I'll still check for orders at 9:30. William Kirk has scheduled a live broadcast for 9:30. Can not say what normal is for the end of a term, partly because those who track them are not sure. And still do not have official announcement of the last session in the (probably) normal way. That may happen at the end of the 10 AM session. Quote
John Kloehr Posted June 30 Posted June 30 Updates: Orders from yesterday's conference will post at noon. All opinions from this term have now posted: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/25 Today is officially the last day of the 2025 term. 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted June 30 Posted June 30 Errata: NPR posted a story stating Alito was retiring. NPR retracted the story within minutes. 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted June 30 Posted June 30 (edited) Orders from today, Tuesday, 6/30 from 6/29 conference. Young Adults (18-20) Denied: 24-1185 9/29*, 11/14, 6/25 NRA v Glass 24-1329 9/29*, 11/14, 6/25 Paris v SAF 25-24 11/14, 6/25 McCoy v ATF 25-132 11/14, 6/25 WVCDL v ATF 25-5713 1/9, 6/25 Picon v US Thomas would have granted WVCDL v ATF. AWB/Magazine Bans Granted: 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, 6/4,11,18,25 25-566 Grant v Higgins (CT) 2/20,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24, 5/1,14,21,28, 6/4,11,18,25 "The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted as to the question presented by the petition in No. 25-238. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument." The question referred to in the order is: " Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. " No action: 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, 6/4,11,18,25 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, 6/4,11,18,25 25-421 NAGR v Lamont 1/23*, 2/20 ,27, 3/6,20,27, 4/2,17,24, 5/1,14,21,28, 6/4,11,18,25 These will carry over and presumably GVR after decision on the consolidated granted petitions. The granted petitions are both "AWB" bans. Neither explicitly challenges magazines, both challenged laws do refer to exceeding a ten round magazine limit. Edited June 30 by John Kloehr 1 4 Quote
Doug E Turtle Posted June 30 Posted June 30 Since NAGR v Lamont specifically dealt with both AR-15s and over 10-round magazines, they clearly didn't pick it so that they could narrowly define and render an opinion on just one hardware item at a time...I know, baby steps, but even toddlers can get a good head of steam going...SCOTUS, not so much. 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted June 30 Posted June 30 (edited) On 6/30/2026 at 4:47 PM, Doug E Turtle said: Since NAGR v Lamont specifically dealt with both AR-15s and over 10-round magazines, they clearly didn't pick it so that they could narrowly define and render an opinion on just one hardware item at a time...I know, baby steps, but even toddlers can get a good head of steam going...SCOTUS, not so much. I did note the two chosen petitions did not challenge magazines directly. I am hopeful this will not matter. The actual law in Viramontes includes "any semiautomatic rifle with the ability to accept a magazine holding more than ten rounds" plus any one of a list of features. Grant includes "an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one other feature. One of those features is "a fixed magazine with the ability to accept more than ten rounds" The capacity limit might get resolved as a side statement, and the other 3 petitions will get GVR. We will find out in about a year. Since features are such an integral part of all the bans, I am hopeful SCOTUS will guide the lower courts to see no functional difference on any features (magazines, pistol grip, thumbhole stock, folding stock, shroud over barrel, things that flip up...) There is another difference between these two petitions and the 3 petitions explicitly including magazines. Both of the granted petitions are represented by David Thompson of Cooper and Kirk. This firm works closely with the 2nd Amendment Foundation, a lead organizational litigant on both petitions. Certainly has a winning track record. The other 3 petitions are supported by different organizational counsel. The two magazine-only petitions by Erin Murphy (also a very good 2A litigator), and the NAGR petition by John-Paul Singh Deol of the Dhillon Law Group. I do not recognize this last one, a quick google shows the law group's "mediation practice is led by John-Paul S. Deol, a nationally trusted employment and business litigator known for sound judgment" and is "a team of principled, aggressive and tenacious trial lawyers who handle business, intellectual property, free speech, internet & employment disputes." A little digging shows he and his firm were involved in NAGR v Garland (FRTs). NAGR did help get an initial injunction for the pistol brace rule, I'm also not sure who counsel for the NAGR suit was as I did not find that case. The lead case for bump stocks was Mock v Garland which this firm did not take part in. Overall, considering the bigger AW question will be litigated, I'm happy with the attorneys that brought it to this point and confident they can bring it home. Edited July 2 by John Kloehr 1 4 Quote
Eyesa Horg Posted June 30 Posted June 30 As has been stated before, thank you John, for all the research and detail you provide us. 👍 4 Quote
Blackwater 53393 Posted June 30 Posted June 30 We’re finally going to have an opportunity to present our case in the main arena!! If there’s any true justice at all, our Constitutionally guaranteed natural right will be more soundly and permanently affirmed and codified!! Prayers outgoing!!! 3 Quote
John Kloehr Posted July 1 Posted July 1 (edited) Now at the end of the 2025 term, here is where petitions stand. Certiorari Granted Granted 4/20, Not yet scheduled. Briefs due 6/30 and 8/25 25-5343 Beaird v US The 2A challenges did not get cert, this is now a sentencing enhancement case. I’ll still follow it as it may be along the lines of thought which led to Hunter v US getting cited in a couple GVRs in the drug cases rather than Hemani. Granted 6/30 25-238 Viramontes v Cook County Granted 6/30, Consolidated with Viramontes (above) 25-566 Grant v Higgins (CT) Both litigants share the same counsel (through SAF). The two purely magazine petitions share a different counsel. The NAGR petition concerns both AWs and LCMs but has a different counsel not fully tested at SCOTUS. Petitions Felon In Possession: 23 9/28:4 Waiting response:18 Hold:1 Protective Order Ban: 1 Conference 9/28/26 Legal Visa Holder:1 Filed Sensitive Places: 2 Filed, Wolford ties Gun and Magazine Bans: 4 Hold:3 Waiting response:1 Total: 38 Felon In Possession Not going to list all 23, no point. Most of these get denied on the first conference. There have been hundreds this year and it has been the most tedious part of posting updates in this thread. I expect many more next year, most of which will fail out of the gate. Between the newly invigorated rights restoration process (still in public comments stage) and Hemani specifically excluding review of categorical bans on certain populations, the court does not seem to want to tread on this ground. Am going to list a few as they seem to be the kind of spaghetti which does stick to the wall. I would like to mention a certain forum member but can not find the post. He suggested to keep flooding the court with petitions and several of us (including me) were not real keen on the idea as being a productive exercise. But I might be wrong. I’m not saying it is right to blindly throw spaghetti, but if certain bits stick to the wall more than others, throw more of those bits. Here are three such possible bits: Filed, response due 6/26, extension to 7/10 25-1219 US v Hembree Possible future Hemani GVR 11th, Filed, response waived, response requested due 7/27 25-7216 6/4 Storey v US 3 prior cocaine dealing felonies, gun charge added under ACCA (Armed Career Criminal Act) enhancement. Enhancement added by judge, not jury as required by the statute. 4th, Filed, response waived, response requested due 7/17 25-7465 6/25 Bynes v Florida Felon ban without individualized dangerousness finding, right to 12 member jury (convicted by 6). Protective Order Ban https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-1249.html Conference 9/28/26 25-1249 Pestarino v Pestarino I’m including the link to the docket. A domestic violence case, even a stalking case. Not sure on the face to know which side to believe. But his claims look incoherent, her response looks credible. Makes the “pest” in the name appropriate. And one might consider this petition part of the stalking behavior. He divorced her, she is a Canadian citizen. Is he the victim of an extortion for future income combined with a gambit for US citizenship (as a DV survivior) or is he just an a-hole? I predict denial. But go read filings for yourself. Legal Visa Holder 25-7637 Rubio-Castillo v US A recent petition from an illegal immigrant was denied. This petition asks if those who came through the front door are part of “the people.” Also might help to know: “ Castillo was a non-immigrant visa holder who entered the United States lawfully... . He was arrested shortly thereafter in Fort Worth, Texas, after purchasing 37 firearms at a gun show. “ I do predict denial. I should not on principles for things like being against waiting periods and rationing as they are unconstitutional infringements, but this still kicks up my spidey sense. Sensitive Places Both really the same case (except two different cases). The 4th Circuit made a split ruling, striking down the default property swap (vampire rule) but upholding all other restrictions. 4th, Filed, response filed, likely Wolford GVR but not scheduled 25-1206 Moore v Kipke This is the state wanting another bite at the apple after losing on a default property swap. I expect this to get either denial or GVR under Wolford. It just has not gone to conference yet. See: 4th,Filed, extension to respond to 7/29 25-1324 Novotny v Moore This case combines the Kipke plaintiffs (from above) with Novotny plaintiffs challenging a bunch of specific location bans. Parks, restaurants serving alcohol, near protests or demonstrations, mass transit, … The timing on these was just too late to resolve either of them this term. AWB/Magazine Bans 25-153 Gator’s v Washington 25-198 Duncan v Bonta 25-421 NAGR v Lamont Likely hold for GVR when Viramontes is decided 25-7652 Fisher v US A new petition, asks if a machine gun is an arm. I think yes. Also think restrictions under the commerce clause ($200 tax stamp) will still hold up. Do question if the ban on civilian ownership of post-1986 guns will hold up. If the commerce clause allows banning anything, then it converts the commerce clause into a general police power. I know I read that somewhere recently, think it was one of the justices in a recent opinion. I will get back to the Wolford analysis soon in the thread for it. This is the close of the 2025 term. Edited July 1 by John Kloehr If, not it. Otto? 4 Quote
Blackwater 53393 Posted July 1 Posted July 1 (edited) I was the one who suggested a flood of new petitions might stimulate sooner and more activity by the high court! I’m still not convinced that it wouldn’t work, but your thoughts on the spaghetti theory ARE a possible added benefit! Thinking about it from the “CAKE” perspective or the death by a thousand cuts approach, it might benefit our cause by incrementally establishing those small victories that JK mentioned and it could put the antis and those states who have taken our rights to playing “Whack-A-Mole” trying to confront all of these new petitions! I’d like to add my thanks to John Kloehr to the others here for his coverage and explanation of SCOTUS’ decisions and rulings! Edited July 1 by Blackwater 53393 2 2 Quote
Subdeacon Joe Posted July 1 Posted July 1 Notice that every news organization that posts about the Court taking up Viramontes is using exactly the same, biased and untrue opening sentence about "The sameSupremeCourtthat expanded gun rights..."? 1 1 Quote
Vail Vigilante Posted July 1 Posted July 1 This is what we have been working toward for 40 years. This is it. We get Viramontes, it is game over for the worst of the 2A infringements. Let's not think of any other outcome, stay positive, stay informed. I am super surprised that they did not do anything with Duncan...it is the oldest of the 2A cases, (IIRC) but it only deals with mags. So maybe it will be dealt with in the text of the Viramontes decision. 3 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.