Schoenthal v. Raoul - State Wins 7th Circuit Appeal Judgement Against Carry Ban on Public Transportation

[Euler]

The perpetrator was not one of the plaintiffs, who were the only people granted relief by the decision. News reports haven't said if the perpetrator even had a CCL.

Meanwhile, on September 25, the judge set a hearing on October 2 for the allegation that the decision lead to the murders.

Edited September 25, 2024 at 09:31 PM by Euler

[gunuser17]

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.  

[skinnyb82]

On 9/26/2024 at 12:45 AM, gunuser17 said:

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.  

Nope they do not. This was a bridge too far for the state. They've gotten away with hysterical garbage in previous briefs but nothing like blaming a judge for a quadruple homicide by a convicted felon who was barred from even owning a gun. They just kept one-upping the hysteria until they ran into an immovable object. Sanction them (yes I realize I'm paying for it but a message must be sent).

[mab22]

On 9/26/2024 at 8:26 AM, skinnyb82 said:

Nope they do not. This was a bridge too far for the state. They've gotten away with hysterical garbage in previous briefs but nothing like blaming a judge for a quadruple homicide by a convicted felon who was barred from even owning a gun. They just kept one-upping the hysteria until they ran into an immovable object. Sanction them (yes I realize I'm paying for it but a message must be sent).

I don’t think we pay for sanctions against attorneys if they are the ones getting sanctioned? Hope not!

[burningspear]

Rhanni Davis, the accused shooter, may not have been a convicted felon. Mr. Skinny, what is the source of your information that he was a convicted felony? He did not have a concealed carry license or a valid FOID at the time of the shooting, which is relevant to the probable sanctions that may be imposed on the overzealous attorneys for the State.

[raymond963]

They were arguing that, if the judge had ruled that banning concealed carry on public transportation was unconstitutional for everybody the victims might have been able to defend themselves.

[burningspear]

I thought the victims were sleeping. 

However, the State's argument is a hot air balloon with a whole in it.

[Molly B.]

 

[Euler]

On September 20, both Raoul and Foxx filed appeals. The court ordered them consolidated into Schoenthal v Raoul immediately. (docket) The court also noted that the judgment is deficient, in that the prevailing party was not granted any relief. It ordered both parties to submit memoranda by October 4 as to why the appellate court should not remand the case back to the district court for a proper judgment.

[Molly B.]

https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/article_5370e416-8025-11ef-82a1-47bf2f272bd1.html

 

Illinois apologizes for implying judge’s transit carry ruling brings ‘safety implications’ – Center Square

Quote

 

In a statement from the defendants in the case filed Monday, attorneys with Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s office said they “aimed to argue that a stay of the Court’s order is justified by the public interest in maintaining public safety.”

 

“The sentence was not intended to suggest that the perpetrator of the Blue Line shootings held a concealed carry permit, acted in self-defense, or engaged in conduct permitted under the Court’s order,” the attorneys wrote Monday. “The sentence also was not intended to state, suggest, or imply that this Court’s order was responsible for or specifically related to the shooting referenced in the stay motion, and counsel apologizes if any such inference was mistakenly created.”

 

 

[TomKoz]

So Judge, not only were you responsible, but you’re not to bright either because you “mistakenly” didn’t understand what we meant.

[djmarkla]

Did the phone call happen yet?

[djmarkla]

On 10/2/2024 at 11:10 AM, TomKoz said:

So Judge, not only were you responsible, but you’re not to bright either because you “mistakenly” didn’t understand what we meant.

 "I am sorry that you took that the wrong way" Would have gotten me more time alone to think about how to apologize correctly. I learned ,after missing the Green Hornet that I needed a better line! 

[2smartby1/2]

Another shooting today, on the Red Line.  23 year old woman shot a 33 year old man after she started an argument with him. 

[Upholder]

https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/article_8fc9994e-80fc-11ef-af0d-2b7a102a8153.html

 

Quote

Johnston ordered the state defendants to answer questions about that implication during a hearing Wednesday.

"I don't want to kill four people. I don't want to kill anybody," Johnston said Wednesday, chastising the state’s lawyers for inferring that his order impacting the four plaintiffs caused a mass shooting.

One attorney said they cited the shooting "as an extreme type of harm that can result from firearms and it was an example in an attempt to connect to ..."

"The court's order," Johnston interjected.

"No, to the safety implications," the attorney said.

"Of the court order," the judge said. "Did the court order kill four people?"

"No," the attorney said.

"Did the court's order kill anybody?" Johnston asked.

"No, your honor," the attorney said.

"Did the court's order lead to any people shot on mass transit in Illinois," the judge asked.

"Not to our knowledge," the attorney said.

 

[steveTA84]

[bmyers]

So, does that mean that right now one can carry on the MetroLink?

 

 

[gunuser17]

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.

[skinnyb82]

Just more proof that the government can do whatever in wants in court and worst that will happen is a tongue lashing. I watched the judge in that YSL case admonish the government for all kinds of conduct, then they just continue on, business as usual. 

[Upholder]

Greg Bishop, who attended the hearing gives a play-by-play recap from his notes:

 

 

[ragsbo]

On 10/3/2024 at 8:18 AM, gunuser17 said:

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.

This BS again?????? So the state can not violate one persons rights but can EVERYONE ELSE??????  That is just government gooblegook to drag this crap out farther and farther. Who ever started that kind of ruling should be disbarred and thrown under the jail. I don't believe it is a legal ruling.

[TomKoz]

On 10/3/2024 at 10:14 PM, ragsbo said:

This BS again?????? So the state can not violate one persons rights but can EVERYONE ELSE??????  That is just government gooblegook to drag this crap out farther and farther. Who ever started that kind of ruling should be disbarred and thrown under the jail. I don't believe it is a legal ruling.

Good question.   Has “as applied” type rulings - where Civil Rights can be ruled unconstitutional for only one/or some ever been challenged all the way up to USSC ?

 

Specifically challenging whether “as applied” can be constitutional?

 

[Euler]

On October 1, 2024 at 12:18 AM CDT, Euler said:→

On September 20, both Raoul and Foxx filed appeals. The court ordered them consolidated into Schoenthal v Raoul immediately. ... The court also noted that the judgment is deficient, in that the prevailing party was not granted any relief. It ordered both parties to submit memoranda by October 4 as to why the appellate court should not remand the case back to the district court for a proper judgment.

On October 3, the parties submitted a joint memorandum. (They didn't have to submit a joint memorandum, but they did.)

Memorandum said:

... Although the court unquestionably has jurisdiction over the appeal, ... the parties agree that the judgment entered by the lower court does not comply with Rule 58. In the parties' view, the [appellate] court could permissibly proceed to merits briefing notwithstanding the error, given that the district court's opinion declares the respective rights of the parties (even if the judgment does not). But the parties do not oppose a limited remand for the sole purpose of entering a compliant judgment if the court chooses to proceed in that manner.
...

Edited October 5, 2024 at 12:12 AM by Euler

[TomKoz]

English ?

[JTHunter]

On 10/4/2024 at 7:01 AM, TomKoz said:

Good question.   Has “as applied” type rulings - where Civil Rights can be ruled unconstitutional for only one/or some ever been challenged all the way up to USSC ?

 

Specifically challenging whether “as applied” can be constitutional?

 

How can it be constitutional?  After all, it is "unequal treatment" under the law.

[Silhouette]

The idea of "facial" vs "as applied" challenges has been discussed by the supreme court many times over many years.  (A couple of quotes from recent decisions are below) The court does not consider an "as applied" challenge to be unequal treatment.  The ruling will be precedential for all identically situated individuals.  Proving that you are identically situated can be expensive and impractical.

 

For a nice discussion of the question that is meant to be accessible, please see:  https://www.cato.org/supreme-court-review/2008-2009/facial-v-applied-challenges-does-it-matter

 

 

------------------------------------

 

The quote below is not the first (nor probably the most recent) consideration discussing both facial and as applied challegnes, but I found it to be among the most clear and complete showing why the court prefers to issue as applied rulings:

 

"It is neither our obligation nor within our traditional institutional role to resolve questions of constitutionality with respect to each potential situation that might develop. “It would indeed be undesirable for this Court to consider every conceivable situation which might possibly arise in the application of complex and comprehensive legislation.” United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17, 21 (1960) (internal quotation marks omitted). For this reason, “[a]s-applied challenges are the basic building blocks of constitutional adjudication.” Fallon, As-Applied and Facial Challenges and Third-Party Standing, 113 Harv. L. Rev. 1321, 1328 (2000)."  "  Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007)

 

As for why as applied challenges often succeed more readily, there is a nice statement from the court in  United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987)

"A facial challenge to a legislative Act is, of course, the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid."

 

 

Edited October 6, 2024 at 07:16 PM by Silhouette
removed extraneous formatting from cut/paste

[Euler]

The idea of challenging as-applied rulings as facially unconstitutional is a bit bizarre. Whom would someone name as the defendant in such a suit? The Supreme Court? In what venue would someone sue the Supreme Court? Presumably a federal district court. Would that make the federal circuit court the highest court to hear the case? Could such a case be petitioned when it fails at the appellate level?

[Silhouette]

Forgive me if I am wrong:  I think the earlier post asking about the constitutionality of "as applied" rulings was asking if "as applied" rulings were some new, local judicial gymnastics being performed by lower courts to keep a law in place or whether such rulings were understood and allowed by the supreme court.   They are understood and even preferred by the Supreme Court.   There is no route to challenge this approach.  The Supreme Court blesses this type of ruling.  The details of the case can of course still be challenged.

 

 

[Euler]

I don't think anyone questioning as-applied rulings implied that they were somehow new, only that they violated the 14th Amendment (which they don't).

[ragsbo]

It does violate  but the powers that wanna be won't say it