Snope v Brown fka Bianchi v Frosh - MD AWB

[EdDinIL]

What would the effect be if SCOTUS doesn't grant cert to Snope v Brown? 

[Euler]

The nation will wait for Barnett.

[Upholder]

On 12/11, SCOTUS announced that the Snope v Brown case that was scheduled to be conferenced on 12/13 will be rescheduled:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-203.html

 

 

[TomKoz]

As a strict Constitutionalist - I’m sure wishful thinking - but let’s hope the SC FINALLY rules the Constitution means exactly what is says that “…, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”.    Period.  Full Stop 🛑!

 

 

 

 

[ragsbo]

SO we are still getting screwed over and the Supreme court is twiddling their thumbs and doing nothing to help us. Hurry up and wait while letting the state give us the shaft. At least give us a stay on the law until it is decided.

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 12/9/2024 at 10:41 AM, Euler said:

The nation will wait for Barnett.

 I actually think that is what is coming.  SCOTUS wants the biggest fish on the hook, and that is our case. 

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 12/17/2024 at 11:22 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 I actually think that is what is coming.  SCOTUS wants the biggest fish on the hook, and that is our case. 

My bets are in the new ICE age (after Jan 20th) this will happen. 

[MrTriple]

If they take the case this year, will they have time to schedule it for a hearing before summer, or will it be pushed out to the 2025-2026 term? Or does it simply depend on their own personal preference?

[Tvandermyde]

yes there is time to take it and hear it this term. Likely, hearing in March, decision by July 1 -- if they take it

[Euler]

Scheduling was the issue when MD was asking for an extension to one of its early October deadlines into late November. If the deadline had been extended that far, then the case wouldn't have been discussed in conference until January and therefore not heard until after October 2025, but the plaintiffs opposed and pointed out the game, so the SC didn't play it and only gave MD until early November.

Of course MD was also banking on Harris to win the presidency and maybe pack the court by the time it was heard, but that didn't work out, either.

[EdDinIL]

I'm trying to make sense of SCOTUS' scheduling.  Does this mean that SCOTUS will schedule some cases today for conference on Friday the 10th?  If so, I assume we're all hoping Snope or Ocean State Tactical get scheduled.

 

Source:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/casedistribution/casedistributionschedule.aspx  link at the bottom of that page

 

 

 

[EdDinIL]

Ask and ye shall receive.
 

 

[EdDinIL]

Mark Smith video repeating the tweet, plus some explanation of what he hopes happens next.

 

 

[Euler]

On January 6, 2025 at 09:12 AM CST, EdDinIL said:→

... Does this mean that SCOTUS will schedule some cases today for conference on Friday the 10th? ...

It means that materials for cases to be discussed will be distributed by today. They could have been distributed earlier. For example, materials for Gray v Jennings were distributed on December 24 for the January 10 conference. The materials for Snope and Ocean State Tactical were distributed today for January 10.

Mark Smith has said before that he thinks all three will be granted and later be scheduled for oral arguments on the same day (possibly consolidated, which would be bizarre IMO). In any case, the justices will be discussing all three at the same conference, including any interrelation among them.

He has also pointed out that even after the court decides to grant the petitions, it wont announce the grants until after it (really all the clerks) has researched if there are any encumbering conditions to hearing the arguments, so it will relist the cases a few times while it does that research.

You may remember the first NYSRPA case from a few years ago, where NYSRPA challenged NY City's ban on handgun transportation, which prohibited handgun owners who lived in the city from transporting their handguns outside the city, e.g., to visit a range. They were required to use ranges and gun shops inside the city only. After the Supreme Court granted the cert petition, NYC changed their laws and argued that the case was then moot. Rather than rule on voluntary cessation (i.e., voluntarily ceasing an offense is not a defense), the Court issued a decision agreeing that the case was moot. Justice Roberts won't want to let something like that happen twice while he's Chief Justice.

[EdDinIL]

On 1/6/2025 at 2:05 PM, Euler said:

He has also pointed out that even after the court decides to grant the petitions, it wont announce the grants until after it (really all the clerks) has researched if there are any encumbering conditions to hearing the arguments, so it will relist the cases a few times while it does that research.

 

That would show as "relisted" on the docket, versus "rescheduled", correct? 

 

Well, it's something at least. Fingers crossed!

 

Maybe the cases will get relisted once, then they'll grant cert on the afternoon of the 20th.  Yeah, MSM would just love that.

[EdDinIL]

Not in the SCOTUS orders list issued today, so cert was neither denied nor granted.  No updates to the docket yet on whether it will be relisted or rescheduled.
 

EDIT:  Relisted for conference 1/17/25, along with Ocean State Tactical.

Edited January 13, 2025 at 05:04 PM by EdDinIL

[EdDinIL]

Breaking news!!!

 

TL;DW: SCOTUS granted cert in five cases today, none of which were Snope or Ocean State Tactical.  Mark @ FBD basically says that if cert is not granted this Monday or the Monday following the conference on the 24th, it'll get pushed to next term.  There are conferences scheduled in February, March, and April, though.  Do those not leave enough time for arguments to be heard this term?

 

It's a short video, at least.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 17, 2025 at 10:47 PM by EdDinIL

[Euler]

It's highly unusual for cert grants to be announced on a Friday. For whatever reason, the court is probably attempting to give those five cases today a few extra days to prepare arguments for this term (i.e., before April).

If grants for Snope and/or Ocean State Tactical are pushed off into February, the next argument days will be in October, which is next term. The only reason for pessimism is that apparently the court isn't giving those cases a few extra highly unusual days yet.

They could be waiting to see what happens with PICA, which isn't going to see action before April, anyway. They could be waiting for a "red flag" case and/or an under-21 case, too, to slam them all next term. I think waiting is misguided, but my opinion isn't one that counts.

[springfield shooter]

On 1/17/2025 at 7:27 PM, Euler said:

It's highly unusual for cert grants to be announced on a Friday. For whatever reason, the court is probably attempting to give those five cases today a few extra days to prepare arguments for this term (i.e., before April).

If grants for Snope and/or Ocean State Tactical are pushed off into February, the next argument days will be in October, which is next term. The only reason for pessimism is that apparently the court isn't giving those cases a few extra highly unusual days yet.

They could be waiting to see what happens with PICA, which isn't going to see action before April, anyway. They could be waiting for a "red flag" case and/or an under-21 case, too, to slam them all next term. I think waiting is misguided, but my opinion isn't one that counts.

 

I don't pretend to have as much knowledge about this as others on the Forum, but.....Didn't SCOTUS "GVR" the case back to the 4th Circuit with instructions to rule according to Bruen, and the 4th Circuit refused to do so? It would seem to be time to take the matter up. And to write an overarching opinion that would settle this issue finally.

 

But to paraphrase Euler, my opinion doesn't count.

[Upholder]

On 1/18/2025 at 8:37 AM, springfield shooter said:

Didn't SCOTUS "GVR" the case back to the 4th Circuit with instructions to rule according to Bruen, and the 4th Circuit refused to do so?

 

You are correct that this case was GVR'd after Bruen.  The 4th Circuit played many games with it and now it's back at SCOTUS.  I cannot imagine that there is any possible reason for them not to hear it other than neither side is certain that the ruling would be what they want -- which should be a slam dunk based on previous rulings.

 

But we're all in the camp of parties whose opinions doesn't count.

[ragsbo]

What ever game the courts are playing, the FACT is that we are sitting here being denied our constitutional rights and they are doing NOTHING about it.

[davel501]

It would be quite the smack to the lower courts if they resolved these cases on the shadow docket. 

[Hap]

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.

[Upholder]

On Jan 21, 2025, this case was relisted for conference on Jan 24, 2025.  If it is not accepted for cert at that conference, it is unlikely to be heard this term.

[Upholder]

The afternoon miscellaneous order list has been released, no mention of the cases we are interested in:

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012425zr_i3dj.pdf

[Flynn]

Appears SCOTUS is kicking the can down the road and won't hear any 2nd cases, it's almost as if even after Hellen/Bruen it's still a 2nd class right even for the SCOTUS 🤬
 

 

[Hap]

Among the possibilities Mark Smith didn't mention as reasons for court inaction today:

1. Plate just plain full for this term.
2. Anticipating a huge influx of challenges to actions of the new administration and a need to handle a lot of them urgently.

[ragsbo]

On 1/24/2025 at 4:57 PM, Flynn said:

Appears SCOTUS is kicking the can down the road and won't hear any 2nd cases, it's almost as if even after Hellen/Bruen it's still a 2nd class right even for the SCOTUS 🤬
 

 

Screwed again! AND folks wonder why the courts are not respected or trusted

[Flynn]

On 1/24/2025 at 7:21 PM, Hap said:

Among the possibilities Mark Smith didn't mention as reasons for court inaction today:

1. Plate just plain full for this term.
2. Anticipating a huge influx of challenges to actions of the new administration and a need to handle a lot of them urgently.

 

I personally find none of those to be acceptable excuses when they accepted non-civil rights cases over potential enumerated civil rights violations cases...  Everyone here has spent their entire life having their 2nd civil rights violated, the questions asked in these cases are legit civil rights questions that deserve answers...  I expect more from the Supreme Court, questions about civil rights cases should take precedence over everything else, it's either a violation of civil rights or not, a simple question for the court to answer...  As it stands right now, these bad rulings are now precedent in all those circuits, and I find that unacceptable as it allows for the continuing denial of civil rights...

[Molly B.]

The court must be waiting for our case which has much more expansive restrictions and bans.