Supreme Court remits MD assault weapons ban back to lower courts in light of Bruen vs. NY ruling

[dblas]

The question would be a response from who in this extraordinary circumstance?

The 4CA en banc court or the MD AG?

From the other party, in this case, the State of Maryland.

 

[rbird7282]

A response to a petition for cert is due 30 days after it is placed on the docket.
En banc arguments are on 3/20/24.

So per the rules, MD will need to respond on or about the week of 3/11/24, right in the middle of their argument prep for all three cases.

The state will submit a 30 day extension request around 2/26 and receive it as a matter of course as a government body, but could another cert petition arrive.

The extension requests are BS except in a few circumstances. They always get granted. How about they actually stick to the date the court sets.

 

[Inigoes]

From the other party, in this case, the State of Maryland.

I can dream that the SCOTUS drags a lower court onto the carpet

 

[Mike1690]

If the SCOTUS denies cert because the 4CA hasn’t issued its en banc opinion, are we precluded from filing for cert after the en banc opinion?

 

[Allen65]

If the SCOTUS denies cert because the 4CA hasn’t issued its en banc opinion, are we precluded from filing for cert after the en banc opinion?

Not precluded. After the eight years or so 4CA will sit on their opinion before issuing it, we most certainly can appeal to SCOTUS again.

 

[jcutonilli]

It has been docketed by SCOTUS

Search

 

[Apd09]

It has been docketed by SCOTUS

Search

That’s just assigning a case number for them to discuss at some point right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BeoBill]

 

[Steel Hunter]

It has been docketed by SCOTUS

Search

No. 23-863 because the link doesn't directly link the way it's being formatted by the forum software.
Edit: Might just be the SOCTUS site right now.
Second edit: Seems to be working now. SCOTUS site had a brief hiccup.

 

[Some Guy]

No. 23-863 because the link doesn't directly link the way it's being formatted by the forum software.
Edit: Might just be the SOCTUS site right now.
Second edit: Seems to be working now. SCOTUS site had a brief hiccup.

This link seems to work for me.

 

[Allen65]

That’s just assigning a case number for them to discuss at some point right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From what I understand, for all intents and purposes it's really just the Clerk acknowledging all the necessary paperwork has been filed by the Appellant. It says nothing about potential disposition.

 

[jcutonilli]

That’s just assigning a case number for them to discuss at some point right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It starts the clock for a response. If the state intends on filing a waiver or extension, it will likely appear on the docket a week or two before the response deadline. The response date for the state is 13 March

 

[Blacksmith101]

It looks like several existing AWB cases are jumping on the band wagon. How many more will join in?

Does having multiple cases increase the likely hood that SCOTUS will grant cert?

 

[Bob A]

It looks like several existing AWB cases are jumping on the band wagon. How many more will join in?

Does having multiple cases increase the likely hood that SCOTUS will grant cert?

IANAL, so there's that.

But if plaintiffs can dogpile a sufficient number of cases that have been shuffled off to Never-decide-land over issues that SCOTUS has taken pains to define, the Court might get a bit tired of being ignored.

Or being treated as an advisory body, with no real authority over Hawaii:

Long ago, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court announced that an “opinion of the
United States Supreme Court . . . is merely another source of authority, admittedly to be afforded respectful consideration, but which we are free to accept or reject in establishing the outer limits of protection afforded by . . . the Hawaiʻi Constitution.”

Even the 9th Circus might be offended at the logical extension of the Hawaii Supreme Court's impression of hierarhical authority; after all, where would this leave them? . . . Sloppy seconds, "respectful consideration-wise"?

 

[BurkeM]

Does having multiple cases increase the likely hood that SCOTUS will grant cert?

Yes.

 

[pcfixer]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-863/300101/20240208115328783_Bianchi%20Petition.pdf

 

[Apd09]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-863/300101/20240208115328783_Bianchi%20Petition.pdf

Is that different than what was posted last week?

The full Petition:

https://t.co/Qek4QuzKar

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sundazes]

Is that different than what was posted last week?





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's dated the 8th, so I guess not. But I am the wrong person to verify if it is the same.

 

[MattFinals718]

It looks like several existing AWB cases are jumping on the band wagon. How many more will join in?

Does having multiple cases increase the likely hood that SCOTUS will grant cert?

Yes.

This is probably my BGOS talking again, but I'm still not optimistic that SCOTUS is going to grant cert. They seem to be pretty doctrinaire about sticking to their refusal to review any case on an interlocutory basis, for reasons that we've discussed ad nauseum in this thread. I hope that I'm wrong, but we'll see. Even Mark Smith says the chance of cert is ~25%. Better than 0, but still not favorable to us.

IANAL, so there's that.

But if plaintiffs can dogpile a sufficient number of cases that have been shuffled off to Never-decide-land over issues that SCOTUS has taken pains to define, the Court might get a bit tired of being ignored.

Or being treated as an advisory body, with no real authority over Hawaii:

Long ago, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court announced that an “opinion of the
United States Supreme Court . . . is merely another source of authority, admittedly to be afforded respectful consideration, but which we are free to accept or reject in establishing the outer limits of protection afforded by . . . the Hawaiʻi Constitution.”

Even the 9th Circus might be offended at the logical extension of the Hawaii Supreme Court's impression of hierarhical authority; after all, where would this leave them? . . . Sloppy seconds, "respectful consideration-wise"?

This is certainly one place where I am curious to see if SCOTUS is willing to get involved, or at least issue a harsh public rebuke of some kind. It's pretty obvious that SCOTUS does not care much (yet) about asserting the Heller and Bruen decisions, but when a lower court tells SCOTUS that they are just an "advisory" body? Yeah, even Sotomayor and Brown-Jackson are going to have a hard time letting that one slide. Almost nobody at SCOTUS (besides Thomas) seems to want to take a strong stand in support of the 2A, but I can't imagine that any of the justices want to set the precedent that a circuit court gets away with telling them that they're only to be "afforded respectful consideration." That has implications which go FAR beyond the 2A...

 

[BurkeM]

Does having multiple cases increase the likely hood that SCOTUS will grant cert?

Yes. (That doesn't mean a 100% chance. Like multiple shots at the same target, more shots taken increase the chance of a HIT.)