gunuser17

Not sure what the concern would be here given that the judgement identifies the issue and the client and the lawyer is easily identifed in other pleadings - all public information. While lawyers typically get the client's permission to identify them in advertising, doing so is not uncommon.

While we like to look for good signs, any lawyer will tell you that concurrences and dissents are great for law students and law professors to generate discussion but have virtually no impact on the law applied by judges and the ultimate result in cases in the future.

Petitions that are not decided by the end of the term can still be carried over to the next term. There is no automatic denial of pending petitions at the end of the term. Usually several hundred petitions are considered at the first meeting in October and this includes petitions carried over and those filed in July - September that are ready for consderation.

If I understand correctly, this was an appeal in regards to a preliminary injunction. I think litigants need to quit wasting money on appeal for interlocutory orders given that the US Supreme Court nearly always rejects them. Just do everything you can to get to final judgment in the district court and then worry about an appeal. Too much time and money is spent on the interlocutory appeals. While the state's appeal at the 2nd Circuit had to be addressed, once that was lost, it seems like no more money should be spent other than on getting the district court to a final judgment that could then be appealed ultimately to the Supreme Court.

I don't believe that the question is whether they can arrest them. The initial question is whether police can detain a person because of observance of a weapon such that upon further investigation, they can then arrest that person based developing additional evidence such as lack of a FOID. If they can't detain you to begin with (which is not technically an arrest), they can't determine whether you lack a FOID.

The Senate tradition of unlimited debate allowed for the use of the filibuster, a loosely defined term for action designed to prolong debate and delay or prevent a vote on a bill, resolution, amendment, or other debatable question. Prior to 1917 the Senate rules did not provide for a way to end debate and force a vote on a measure. That year, the Senate adopted a rule to allow a two-thirds majority to end a filibuster, a procedure known as "cloture." In 1975 the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds of senators voting to three-fifths of all senators duly chosen and sworn, or 60 of the 100-member Senate. This is a rule that could be changed as it was for judges but given what happened after democrats first opened that door, I expect it will not happen again.

Deleted

There is no hearing at this point. Conference simply means that the Justices will sit down together and discuss these cases. They will then either vote on whether to grant cert.- in other words - allow the appeal to continue, decline to hear the appeal, or punt them to the next conference. If at least 4 justices agree to accept the case, briefing will then be completed and oral arguments will be heard in the future - usually at least 3 months after cert being granted and sometimes up to a year later. Timing may depend on whether the United States is asked to appear on the subject at issue - if so, the US is often slow in responding but hopefully, with the change in administration, that will not be the case here. After cert. is granted and after the oral arguments at the Supreme Court are heard, the justices sit down together again and vote on who should win. Of the justices voting on the winning side, the Chief justice then usually picks who will write the opinion if he is on the winning side of the case. If not, then the senior justice on the winning side designates who will write the opinion.

Sorry, Ken Griffin took his $200 million a year in state income taxes and is enjoying Florida. I expect that Illinois ends up losing more than $500 million a year in income taxes just from his and his employees move to Florida. Griffin reportedly lost at least $25 million on the two condos in Chicago that he sold last year after he moved on - he has had enough of Illinois and apparently is not expecting any comeback in the gold coast real estate market. Given the dozens of empty store fronts along State and Michigan Ave, real estate values won't go up any time soon.

Scheduled for oral argument at Illinois Supreme Court on January 22, 2025.

The only way that I know of for the 7th Circuit to send this case back to the district court at this time is to reverse some or all of the district court's judgment. If that happens, then that decision could be appealed to the Supreme Court. No such reversal is even under consideration at this time since the case has not been briefed on the merits fully yet. That is separate and apart from whether the 7th enters a stay of the judgment pending appeal. The only two apparent options right now open seem to be entering a stay or refusing to do so and if the 7th refuses to enter a stay, then the district court's injunction should go into force.

Everything that you say here is an admission against your interest. Delete your post and get a lawyer today.

No. As I understand it, this is an "as applied" constitutional case. For that reason, the order only applies to the actual plaintiffs in that case.

Let's face it, the judge is hacked off that the lawyers essentially claimed that the murders were caused by the Judge's ruling. Judges do not like to be accused of murder or accessory to murder.