CRPA SCOTUS Overview

[Subdeacon Joe]

 

 

[Blackwater 53393]

I don’t know if they are actually stalling, but they’re certainly taking their own sweet time about getting around to doing anything!

[John Kloehr]

I'll watch that video tonight, it is in my queue.

 

At this point, anything not yet argued even if it gets cert will not be argued until at least October (next court term). The last argument day for this term was yesterday. This includes Beaird which got cert on the 17th. The court will hear it next term.

 

Counting tomorrow, there are 8 conference days left this term. Tomorrow is the last full conference, the remaining conferences are split between examining cases and non-argument sessions. Then no more until October. This all for regular docket cases, the emergency or shadow docket is separate.

 

I think the court may have considered this (end of term, and even already full docket) and is taking its time on hardware bans. The opinion respecting Snopes denial did include the phrase "next term or two." Also there has been no movement on young adults in months, neither Wolford nor Hemani are likely to address them so unlikely they are being held for GVR.

[Eyesa Horg]

Those folks don't work a lot do they?!

[Blackwater 53393]

I suspect that the interns and staff search for meaningful precedent in most cases and the justices then read, study, and cogitate on the evidence and context. When they have determined their position, they are then busy with outlining their responses before turning that back over the staff for final composition and proofreading.

 

My dad worked for a state supreme court justice for several years. He was a court officer. He often spoke of “his judge” working long hours in the law library and in his office.

[Subdeacon Joe]

9 hours ago, Eyesa Horg said:

Those folks don't work a lot do they?!

 

Um.. you do know that the SCOTUS gets petitions for cases that don't involve firearms, right?  Call it around 5,000 petitions a year.  They have to winnow through all that and come up with around a hundred to hear.  Even if their clerks manage to pare it down to 1,000 if enough significance to even talk about as maybe good enough hear, that's a lot of reading,  discussions, and research to do.  Then four have to agree to hear it.

 

As Pard @John Kloehr shows us with his updates, they put serious time into consideration of the cases. 

 

I know that I do my share of whining...especially about Duncan... because I don't know the big picture, what's going on in various Circuits,  what's in the pipeline,  and how they put together their strategies for the best outcome in support of the Constitution. 

[Lawdog Dago Dom]

I get what you're saying @Subdeacon Joe.

 

But it's not sterile process. Judges, like any of us, have friends and neighbors, and contacts throughout all walks of life. As do their clerks.

 

Bartending in the State Capitol during college was an eye opener. It was a big attorney, judges, legislator watering hole. I heard more legislative deals being cut while mixing drinks and washing glasses than I can remember (mid 80's). A lot of it is timing. Getting the right ear at the right time is the key.

 

But waiting still sucks.

[Subdeacon Joe]

7 minutes ago, Lawdog Dago Dom said:

I get what you're saying @Subdeacon Joe.

 

But it's not sterile process. Judges, like any of us, have friends and neighbors, and contacts throughout all walks of life. As do their clerks.

 

Bartending in the State Capitol during college was an eye opener. It was a big attorney, judges, legislator watering hole. I heard more legislative deals being cut while mixing drinks and washing glasses than I can remember (mid 80's). A lot of it is timing. Getting the right ear at the right time is the key.

 

But waiting still sucks.

 

Exactly. They're people and they can't compleatly separate their personal beliefs from their decisions. 

 

One thing that really irritates me about it not being a sterile process is how afraid some, maybe most,  are of unburdening us of what has gone before. A couple of years ago during hearings on some 2nd Amendment case,  one Justice said something like,  "I we rule in favor of the plaintiff we will be overturning 50 years of settled law." Minerva on a wake board playing a kazoo! If a law is unconstitutional it shouldn't matter how many decades or centuries of "settled law" get overturned. 

[Lawdog Dago Dom]

True. Wrong is wrong, no matter how many birthdays its had.

The real "wrong" is not correcting it.

[John Kloehr]

Streamed it last night.

13 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

I know that I do my share of whining...especially about Duncan... because I don't know the big picture, what's going on in various Circuits,  what's in the pipeline,  and how they put together their strategies for the best outcome in support of the Constitution. 

 

I sure do not know the big picture either. I do see some pieces of it.

 

Against the backdrop of current hardware cases and the Snopes denials last term...

 

The 3rd may soon issue rulings in 2A cases. The newest judge on that panel is conservative and may flip that court. That court may be waiting for a ruling in Wolford or Hemani (or both) before finalizing its rulings. This is particularly true for a ruling in Koons v Platkin, a carry case and may be waiting on a decision in Wolford.

 

The DC court did create a short-lived split for hardware, now vacated and going en banc. It will be briefed and argued. Wolford and Hemani are likely to get rulings before DC finishes the process but they are not hardware cases. Should SCOTUS accept a hardware case, DC is not likely to rule until SOTUS issues its ruling. It could even stay proceedings while waiting in the interest of "judicial economy."

 

SCOTUS is possibly waiting on a ruling in the 3rd circuit before taking a hardware case. In particular, it may be waiting on the consolidated hardware cases (ANJRPC v. Platkin / Cheeseman v. Platkin). These have been briefed and argued, just waiting for a decision.

 

So SCOTUS may be waiting on the 3rd on a hardware case decision before taking one, the 3rd may be waiting on SCOTUS in a people case and this may also be holding up its hardware case, and DC may delay its hardware case if SCOTUS takes one. The 3rd could even pause its hardware case if SCOTUS takes one.

 

Prior to getting the newest member, the 3rd has previously ruled en banc on a prohibited person case (Range v Attorney General). Range obtained food stamps fraudulently, the court ruled a lifetime ban was unconstitutional as applied to Range. As this lower-court ruling was precedential and created a circuit split, it may be informing SCOTUS as it deliberates on Hemani (admission of drug use).

 

Edited May 1 by John Kloehr
Note to Otto: Do not change precedential to presidential!

[Sedalia Dave]

On 4/30/2026 at 11:00 AM, Eyesa Horg said:

Those folks don't work a lot do they?!

 

In addition to the case load we are discussing, the last several years SCOTUS has had an ever increasing Shadow Docket of cases that bypass the normal path through the state and circuit courts and end up needing immediate action by SCOTUS. This throws a monkey wrench into the normal process required to get onto the docket.

[Subdeacon Joe]

On 5/1/2026 at 6:31 AM, John Kloehr said:

Streamed it last night.

 

I sure do not know the big picture either. I do see some pieces of it.

 

Against the backdrop of current hardware cases and the Snopes denials last term...

 

The 3rd may soon issue rulings in 2A cases. The newest judge on that panel is conservative and may flip that court. That court may be waiting for a ruling in Wolford or Hemani (or both) before finalizing its rulings. This is particularly true for a ruling in Koons v Platkin, a carry case and may be waiting on a decision in Wolford.

 

The DC court did create a short-lived split for hardware, now vacated and going en banc. It will be briefed and argued. Wolford and Hemani are likely to get rulings before DC finishes the process but they are not hardware cases. Should SCOTUS accept a hardware case, DC is not likely to rule until SOTUS issues its ruling. It could even stay proceedings while waiting in the interest of "judicial economy."

 

SCOTUS is possibly waiting on a ruling in the 3rd circuit before taking a hardware case. In particular, it may be waiting on the consolidated hardware cases (ANJRPC v. Platkin / Cheeseman v. Platkin). These have been briefed and argued, just waiting for a decision.

 

So SCOTUS may be waiting on the 3rd on a hardware case decision before taking one, the 3rd may be waiting on SCOTUS in a people case and this may also be holding up its hardware case, and DC may delay its hardware case if SCOTUS takes one. The 3rd could even pause its hardware case if SCOTUS takes one.

 

Prior to getting the newest member, the 3rd has previously ruled en banc on a prohibited person case (Range v Attorney General). Range obtained food stamps fraudulently, the court ruled a lifetime ban was unconstitutional as applied to Range. As this lower-court ruling was precedential and created a circuit split, it may be informing SCOTUS as it deliberates on Hemani (admission of drug use).

 

 

Everyone waiting for someone else to make a move.  Like the classic "4 cars get to a 4 way stop at the same time" problem.