En banc Decision in Peruta -- a loss

[Inigoes]

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/town-of-chester-v-laroe-estates-inc/

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/16-605-pet-merits-reply.pdf

Conclusion "The judgement of the Court of Appeals should be reversed".

"Peruta" filed for cert 1/12/2017

"Chester v. Laroe" was granted cert 1/13/2017

Could this explain the unusual rescheduling activity in Peruta?

 

[krucam]

"Peruta" filed for cert 1/12/2017

"Chester v. Laroe" was granted cert 1/13/2017

Could this explain the unusual rescheduling activity in Peruta?

Chester v Laroe is being argued TODAY.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/04/monday-round-up-344/

Monday round-up
As they kick off the last session of October Term 2016, the justices will hear oral arguments in three cases today. First up is Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board, in which the court will consider the proper form for civil service review in mixed cases. Howard Wasserman previewed the case for this blog. Dara Brown and Jaeeun Shin also provide a preview for Cornell University Law School’s Legal Information Institute. The second case of the day is Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., which asks whether intervenors in a lawsuit must have standing. This blog’s preview came from Howard Wasserman. Taneil George and Nicholas Velonis preview the case for Cornell.

 

[danb]

I did not see anything in Chester v Laroe transcript that made me think that the court would rethink the intervention in Peruta.

As for the rescheduling, this tidbit makes me think that sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...t-845pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.1bda8a3264fa

Gorsuch skipped last week’s private conference, where justices consider which cases to accept and reject, so he could bone up on the cases the court is hearing this week and next, its last oral arguments of the current term, which ends in June.

Well, if he skipped conference, that might indeed explain the rescheduling. I did not realize he could skip.

 

[Master_P]

Even if this case implicates California's status for intervention in Peruta, it does nothing to Richards, which would still address the 2A claim.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

[Dogabutila]

Didn't they deny the intervention request anyways? And then go ahead and do exactly the same via sua sponte ?

 

[krucam]

Going to conference this Friday, April 21st...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/16-894.htm

Mar 8 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 24, 2017.
Mar 23 2017 Rescheduled.
Mar 27 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 31, 2017.
Mar 30 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 10 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2017.
Apr 12 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 17 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 21, 2017

 

[pcfixer]

Chester v Laroe is being argued TODAY.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/04/monday-round-up-344/

"Perhaps the case featuring the most intrigue is “Town of Chester, New York v. Laroe Estates” – but not due to the facts of the case; instead all eyes will be on Gorsuch to see if he recuses himself due to the presence of Neal Katyal. Katyal, a former Obama administration acting solicitor general who is set to argue for Chester, wrote the New York Times op-ed “Why Liberals Should Back Neil Gorsuch” after President Trump nominated Gorsuch, and helped introduce Gorsuch during his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. At one point, Gorsuch referred to Katyal as “my friend.”


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...h-recuse-himself-on-his-first-day-on-job.html

 

[GlocksAndPatriots]

"Perhaps the case featuring the most intrigue is “Town of Chester, New York v. Laroe Estates” – but not due to the facts of the case; instead all eyes will be on Gorsuch to see if he recuses himself due to the presence of Neal Katyal. Katyal, a former Obama administration acting solicitor general who is set to argue for Chester, wrote the New York Times op-ed “Why Liberals Should Back Neil Gorsuch” after President Trump nominated Gorsuch, and helped introduce Gorsuch during his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. At one point, Gorsuch referred to Katyal as “my friend.”


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...h-recuse-himself-on-his-first-day-on-job.html

Given the nature of this profession, if Supreme Court justices had to recuse themselves from every case where a person who they consider or once considered a friend was involved, there'd be no judges to hear the cases.

 

[press1280]

Given the nature of this profession, if Supreme Court justices had to recuse themselves from every case where a person who they consider or once considered a friend was involved, there'd be no judges to hear the cases.

Yea this is too loose of a connection. Kagan refused herself from cases due to the fact she participated in lower court proceedings on the government side.

No such conflict here.

 

[gruntz03]

Going to conference this Friday, April 21st...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/16-894.htm

Today it says Rescheduled.

 

[danb]

rescheduled again?

This may mean Gorsuch is skipping another conference to "prepare."

If they keep postponing this I may have to upgrade to three

 

[krucam]

Or...as Esq suggested someone may be writing a Dissent (either side)...perhaps trying to ensure a 5th vote? Who knows?

Still wish I knew the dynamics of these 4 Reschedules, all on the day before a scheduled Conference.

 

[Inigoes]

Or...as Esq suggested someone may be writing a Dissent (either side)...perhaps trying to ensure a 5th vote? Who knows?

Still wish I knew the dynamics of these 4 Reschedules, all on the day before a scheduled Conference.

Caetano had something like 9 relists

 

[krucam]

Caetano had something like 9 relists

Because a Per Curiam was being written I'm sure. Would be nice to see a Per Curiam smack down in Peruta, but that's wishful thinking...

 

[press1280]

Or...as Esq suggested someone may be writing a Dissent (either side)...perhaps trying to ensure a 5th vote? Who knows?

Still wish I knew the dynamics of these 4 Reschedules, all on the day before a scheduled Conference.

I agree, I think it's not because of Gorsuch.

 

[danb]

Other cases have been "rescheduled" then "redistributed" then flat denied with no dissent. Looking at a bunch of cases, the grant (PC opinion, or dissent from denial) has to come after it is first distributed.

Rescheduled looks to mean exactly what it appears... has not even come up for vote or discussion at conference.

 

[Kharn]

Another long shot: one of the Heller three is holding Peruta until Kennedy retires out of frustration with his wishy-washy stances.

 

[danb]

Another long shot: one of the Heller three is holding Peruta until Kennedy retires out of frustration with his wishy-washy stances.

Could be, that is a variant on my theory that they think that they have 3 votes and think it's important enough to hold for conference for Gorsuch.

IF Gorsuch does not participate in conference this Friday (he did not participate last fri), it would be a data point favor of this theory.

IF Gorsuch does participate, reschedule means that they are waiting on something else.

 

[Kharn]

Rescheduled again...

 

[esqappellate]

Relist vs. rescheduled. the difference according to John Elwood at Scotusblog
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/relist-watch-44/
"A rescheduled case is assigned to a new Conference before being discussed at a particular Conference; a relisted case is assigned to a new Conference after being discussed at Conference. Clear on that? Me neither."

It may be a distinction without a difference. Indeed, sometimes, after the case has been relisted, it is then later "rescheduled" before the conference for which it was relisted. The only thing that really matters is that for *some* reason the court is putting off making a decision on cert. In conference, there is the "discuss list" on which cert votes may be taken and the "dead list" which is every other case (a dead list case is a case which a Justice has not put on the discuss list). Relisted or rescheduled certainly means that the case has the court's attention. The only material difference, it seems to me, between a "relist" and a true "reschedule" (defined as a case that has never actually made it to the Conference), *may* be that a vote on cert has yet to take place on a rescheduled case. If that is correct, then it logically follows that it is too early for someone to be writing a dissent from a denial of cert in Peruta (or a per curiam opinion); the case hasn't made it to Conference and thus there has been no cert vote yet.

But, at base, it is pure speculation as to why the court is putting off a decision. My current favorite speculation is that the Court is giving Gorsuch an opportunity to weigh in. That at least would be consistent with putting off a cert vote until he is ready to vote. Or maybe they are just too busy watching the Kwanzan cherry trees blooming to do their homework. You can do that when you have life tenure and don't have a boss.