Hap

This case was one of the original four GVR'd at the time of the original Bruen decision, right? I can't imagine that the Court will be happy to see the same bad decision again, wrapped in a slightly different flavor of invalid reasoning.

The Administration has pulled the security clearances of Perkins Coie LLP, the law firm known internationally for its role in the infamous Steele Dossier fraud, and in Illinois for its role in defending Highland Park’s infamous semiauto ban.

Among the possibilities Mark Smith didn't mention as reasons for court inaction today: Plate just plain full for this term. Anticipating a huge influx of challenges to actions of the new administration and a need to handle a lot of them urgently.

Granting cert just before the inauguration would guarantee a lot of negative coverage before and during the event, and would also allow Biden and his controllers/minders/minions to pontificate on the issue while still in office. Smarter to act after he’s gone.

It’s fine with me if the Court focuses on 2A issues.

It would be interesting to know the geographic distribution of these enforcement actions, at whatever level of detail can be provided without identifying individuals. Presumably city/county would be ok.

This sort of reasoning - limit the damage to the 7th Circuit, or at least retain control over when the issue gets to the Supreme Court - worked out well for them in the case of concealed carry, considering the delay between Moore/Shepard v Madigan and NYSRPA v Bruen. Bought them almost a decade. SCOTUS can change a lot in a decade.

There are so many cases and so many decision points in the handling of each of them that I am just plain not going to get excited about anything that isn't definitive. Granting cert, yeah, publishing a decision, absolutely, anything else, nope. Even denying cert doesn't mean anything in the current environment, where the Court has a choice of a dozen cases on any given issue, and no need to account for why it doesn't want to hear any particular one of them. We'll get there. Too slowly, but we'll get there.

So, a little over a kilopage of allegedly relevant alleged history. Too much to read but I did scan the tables of contents. Same old stuff we've been seeing in every case since Bruen. I would have thought JB would want to set an example, what with having his eye on the White House and all. Guess not.

They will avoid charging wherever possible until SCOTUS is done with the matter.

When my wife started practicing law, incorrect spelling, punctuation, or grammar in something prepared for a client could be a career-ender, and, if repeated, usually was. Standards have slipped considerably since then. SCOTUS itself still does reasonably well, at least where those areas are concerned.

Twelve pages and not a word wasted. This brief may be the best piece of 2A exposition since Bruen.

I think the key words in McGlynn's statement were "truly reserved for military use" with the emphasis on "truly." To me that signals a pretty high degree of skepticism toward Easterbrook's wholesale consignment of anything he doesn't like to the category of military weapons. McGlynn may put a pretty tight fence around the concept of "reserved for military use." We'll know soon.

It means they’ll hear oral arguments this year and issue a decision whenever they feel like it.

There are all kinds of paths that things could take from here but they all lead to the same destination. Stick a fork in the semiauto bans; they are done.

So it looks like “irrational basis” is going to remain the standard of scrutiny for 2A cases in the 7th Circuit, at least until SCOTUS weighs in.

Even if the 7th Circuit were to try to slow-roll this, they can’t do anything about the semiauto bans in other circuits. When SCOTUS wants to take an AWB case, there will be plenty of choices.

This is a good time to keep in mind that there are other semiauto bans, in other circuits, in play.

What was the problem with the plaintiffs’ response?

So Easterbrook thinks that Friedman may still be relevant. It isn't, but he isn't going to believe that until he hears it from SCOTUS.

We are a long way from done but this order is a huge step in the right direction.

I spent the afternoon with the transcript. I thought that the attorneys for both sides did a good job of presenting their arguments and the judge did an exemplary job of asking detailed questions. As I read the transcript, I thought of the questions asked by the 7th Circuit panel when it heard the Friedman appeal. I don't think there was anything that came up there that wasn't covered more carefully in this case. Whatever his decision, we'll get a very good record on which to argue at the 7th Circuit and, if necessary, at SCOTUS. Whatever else happens, the days of what I've always referred to as Judge Easterbrook's "irrational basis" standard of scrutiny are gone forever. Good riddance.

What’s that word for doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

I'm beginning to detect a certain pattern to the responses./s

<hmm>