Barnett v. Raoul (3:23-cv-00209) (S.D. Ill. 2023) - NSSF Gun/Mag Ban

[Flynn]

On 4/30/2024 at 8:34 PM, Upholder said:

Also today, the GOA and Gun Owners Foundation filled their reply brief with SCOTUS:

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1010/308637/20240430105414515_23-1010 GOA GOF Reply FINAL.pdf

 

There are some good zingers in there, I especially like this one...

 

Quote

...it must be assumed that the M1 Garand simply vaporizes its targets on contact (it does not).

 

[Upholder]

Per Todd, SCOTUS has distributed the Illinois' gun ban cases and the Maryland case for conference on 5/16.

 

 

 

[Upholder]

https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1785368953134645505

 

Quote

Illinois cases heading to conference May 16. We could get a decision then, but they also could get relisted a couple times.

 

From here, a number of outcomes are possible:

 

1. SCOTUS could grant certiorari in full, and hear the case in its next term. If that happens, the parties will submit more complete briefs on the merits, and oral argument will be heard likely sometime in the fall. Our upcoming trial before Judge McGlynn would likely get stayed.

 

2. The Court could also opt to issue a summary reversal, which would reverse the Seventh Circuit without further argument and briefing. Such summary reversals are usually accompanied by a per curiam opinion explaining the action. I see this as least likely, they won't decide an issue this big with a per curiam. I could be wrong.

 

3. Another alternative is for the Court to grant certiorari, vacate the Seventh Circuit’s ruling, and remand it back to that court for further proceedings. This would be a scenario in which the Supreme Court is not quite ready to hear the case but does want to give the Seventh Circuit guidance on how to correct errors in its legal analysis. Something similar could happen in the event that the pending ruling in Rahimi changes the Second Amendment analysis in a way relevant to the Bevis ruling.

 

4. Finally, there is always the possibility that the Court opts to deny review entirely for the time being, preferring to hear the case following a final judgment (or at least that will be our cope). If so, we go to trial and climb the ladder all over again.

 

If that happens, the real test will then be Duncan, which is on final judgment so no excuses.

 

[TomKoz]

Purple On:  would it help if we start “protesting “ and set up tent encampments around Springfield capitol and Naperville city hall?  We could refuse to leave until our demands are met?  Isn’t that how they (D)o it?   Purple Off.

[Euler]

To be completely analogous, we'd set up tent cities around state police ranges to prevent people from practicing or qualifying until the government caved to our demands. Yeah, that should work.

IMO, the most likely outcome at the Supreme Court is that the Court grants cert, then immediately remands back to CA7 with instructions to correct the analysis that CA7 applied to the stay of the Southern District's Barnett injunction, which also upheld the Northern District's Bevis denial. The second most likely outcome is that they deny the petitions entirely. In either case, we could know by May 20. We should definitely know by May 28. Also in either case, the cases still have to go to trial, which they still haven't done.

[bmyers]

I had to look up and see what was meant by SCOTUS conference, yet I'm a little confused because I must of missed the oral arguments. 

 

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1

 

When oral arguments are concluded, the Justices have to decide the case. They do so at what is known as the Justices' Conference. When Court is in session, there are two conferences scheduled per week – one on Wednesday afternoon and one on Friday afternoon. At their Wednesday conference, the Justices talk about the cases heard on Monday. At their Friday conference, they discuss cases heard on Tuesday and Wednesday. When Court is not in session, no Wednesday conference is held.

Before going into the Conference, the Justices frequently discuss the relevant cases with their law clerks, seeking to get different perspectives on the case. At the end of these sessions, sometimes the Justices have a fairly good idea of how they will vote in the case; other times, they are still uncommitted.

According to Supreme Court protocol, only the Justices are allowed in the Conference room at this time—no police, law clerks, secretaries, etc. The Chief Justice calls the session to order and, as a sign of the collegial nature of the institution, all the Justices shake hands. The first order of business, typically, is to discuss the week's petitions for certiorari, i.e., deciding which cases to accept or reject.

After the petitions for certiorari are dealt with, the Justices begin to discuss the cases that were heard since their last Conference. According to Supreme Court protocol, all Justices have an opportunity to state their views on the case and raise any questions or concerns they may have. Each Justice speaks without interruptions from the others. The Chief Justice makes the first statement, then each Justice speaks in descending order of seniority, ending with the most junior justice—the one who has served on the court for the fewest years.

When each Justice is finished speaking, the Chief Justice casts the first vote, and then each Justice in descending order of seniority does likewise until the most junior justice casts the last vote. After the votes have been tallied, the Chief Justice, or the most senior Justice in the majority if the Chief Justice is in the dissent, assigns a Justice in the majority to write the opinion of the Court. The most senior justice in the dissent can assign a dissenting Justice to write the dissenting opinion.

If a Justice agrees with the outcome of the case, but not the majority's rationale for it, that Justice may write a concurring opinion. Any Justice may write a separate dissenting opinion. When there is a tie vote, the decision of the lower Court stands. This can happen if, for some reason, any of the nine Justices is not participating in a case (e.g., a seat is vacant or a Justice has had to recuse).

Edited May 1, 2024 at 11:55 AM by bmyers

[Silhouette]

@BMeyers

 

The conference mentioned here is not the process that you describe above (though that could conceivably happen in a year's time).  When there is a petition for certiorari requesting that Scotus exercise its authority to hear a case, the Justices consider that petition.  In very broad strokes, they get together and vote on whether to hear the case.  It takes four votes to grant the petition and have SCOTUS take up the case.  At a more granular level (but still not complete), most justices participate in a "cert pool" where their clerks divide up the cert petitions and summarize the issues concisely for the justices so that they can decide how to vote.  Then, at the weekly Friday conference, if a case looks promising (the vast majority of requests are denied), it often gets relisted for a future conference at which point the justices take a close look through their own processes and clerks.  At a subsequent conference, the justices may actually vote on the case.  Some petitions are relisted over 10 times.  In the modern era, most cases that will be accepted are relisted at least once.

 

The case being discussed here is at the petition for certiorari stage and is fully briefed and scheduled the petition for cert is scheduled for the conference on 5/16.  The justices can do whatever they deem appropriate, but betting odds would be on denial (bad for us) or relist (promising).  The hope is that certiorari (review) will ultimately be granted so that oral arguments can happen next term.

 

 

 

[bmyers]

On 5/1/2024 at 7:44 AM, Silhouette said:

@BMeyers

 

The conference mentioned here is not the process that you describe above (though that could conceivably happen in a year's time).  When there is a petition for certiorari requesting that Scotus exercise its authority to hear a case, the Justices consider that petition.  In very broad strokes, they get together and vote on whether to hear the case.  It takes four votes to grant the petition and have SCOTUS take up the case.  At a more granular level (but still not complete), most justices participate in a "cert pool" where their clerks divide up the cert petitions and summarize the issues concisely for the justices so that they can decide how to vote.  Then, at the weekly Friday conference, if a case looks promising (the vast majority of requests are denied), it often gets relisted for a future conference at which point the justices take a close look through their own processes and clerks.  At a subsequent conference, the justices may actually vote on the case.  Some petitions are relisted over 10 times.  In the modern era, most cases that will be accepted are relisted at least once.

 

The case being discussed here is at the petition for certiorari stage and is fully briefed and scheduled the petition for cert is scheduled for the conference on 5/16.  The justices can do whatever they deem appropriate, but betting odds would be on denial (bad for us) or relist (promising).  The hope is that certiorari (review) will ultimately be granted so that oral arguments can happen next term.

 

 

 

Thanks for the clarification. 

[yurimodin]

On 5/1/2024 at 12:51 AM, Euler said:

To be completely analogous, we'd set up tent cities around state police ranges to prevent people from practicing or qualifying until the government caved to our demands. Yeah, that should work.

IMO, the most likely outcome at the Supreme Court is that the Court grants cert, then immediately remands back to CA7 with instructions to correct the analysis that CA7 applied to the stay of the Southern District's Barnett injunction, which also upheld the Northern District's Bevis denial. The second most likely outcome is that they deny the petitions entirely. In either case, we could know by May 20. We should definitely know by May 28. Also in either case, the cases still have to go to trial, which they still haven't done.

No they don't. Its called SUPREME court for a reason. They can chose to nip this in the bud ASAP if they want. Unfortunately they have seemed too worried about upsetting their blue blood Karen neighbors in the HOA of their gated communities to give a poo. 

 

I hope I am wrong but SCOTUS needs to decide if they want to actually be relevant in the future.

[Euler]

On May 1, 2024 at 09:35 AM CDT, yurimodin said:→

On 5/1/2024 at 12:51 AM, Euler said:

...
... Also in either case, the cases still have to go to trial, which they still haven't done.

No they don't. Its called SUPREME court for a reason. ...

[bold added by yurimodin]

100% wrong. Lawsuits are tried. The Supreme Court (and Court of Appeals) can set the precedent on which the lawsuit is decided, but the trial must still take place. Trials take place in district courts, not in the Supreme Court or courts of appeals.

[Flynn]

On 5/1/2024 at 12:51 AM, Euler said:

IMO, the most likely outcome at the Supreme Court is that the Court grants cert, then immediately remands back to CA7 with instructions to correct the analysis

 

I would prefer a full smackdown, but this is actually a good option as it gives the lower courts a chance to see the error of their ways...

 

At the end of the day the SCOTUS can no longer stay silent, they are being ignored by the lower courts on a daily basis, they simply can't allow that to continue...

[yurimodin]

On 5/2/2024 at 3:42 AM, Flynn said:

At the end of the day the SCOTUS can no longer stay silent, they are being ignored by the lower courts on a daily basis, they simply can't allow that to continue...

 

I dunno, I am starting to think they have some kind of sub-dom kink at this point.

[MrTriple]

On 5/1/2024 at 12:51 AM, Euler said:

To be completely analogous, we'd set up tent cities around state police ranges to prevent people from practicing or qualifying until the government caved to our demands. Yeah, that should work.

IMO, the most likely outcome at the Supreme Court is that the Court grants cert, then immediately remands back to CA7 with instructions to correct the analysis that CA7 applied to the stay of the Southern District's Barnett injunction, which also upheld the Northern District's Bevis denial. The second most likely outcome is that they deny the petitions entirely. In either case, we could know by May 20. We should definitely know by May 28. Also in either case, the cases still have to go to trial, which they still haven't done.

If you think about it, the real problem here has always been the Friedman precedent, not the Supreme Court or other actors, strictly speaking. Until the Friedman precedent is thrown out, the courts are still bound by it.

 

While that doesn't stop Easterbrook, et. al. from just making up bad case law, at least this would remove that set of arguments from the negotiating table.

[EdDinIL]

On 5/2/2024 at 3:42 AM, Flynn said:

 

I would prefer a full smackdown, but this is actually a good option as it gives the lower courts a chance to see the error of their ways...

 

At the end of the day the SCOTUS can no longer stay silent, they are being ignored by the lower courts on a daily basis, they simply can't allow that to continue...

 

Is that when the lower courts say, "No, we were right" and reissue whatever ruling was remanded back to the courts?

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 5/2/2024 at 6:50 PM, MrTriple said:

If you think about it, the real problem here has always been the Friedman precedent, not the Supreme Court or other actors, strictly speaking. Until the Friedman precedent is thrown out, the courts are still bound by it.

 

While that doesn't stop Easterbrook, et. al. from just making up bad case law, at least this would remove that set of arguments from the negotiating table.

 

I can swear I remember reading that Bruen stated there were to be no other tests other than historical + common use.  

 

Uncle Festerbrook is just refusing to accept that his career defining precedent is no longer valid case law.    

[skinnyb82]

On 5/3/2024 at 4:45 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

I can swear I remember reading that Bruen stated there were to be no other tests other than historical + common use.  

 

Uncle Festerbrook is just refusing to accept that his career defining precedent is no longer valid case law.    

I would like to see Thomas (because we all know he will write the majority opinion) call out Easterbrook and Wood by name and absolutely eviscerate Friedman and leave no room for interpretation or semantical games to make it unassailable. A guy can dream.

[MrTriple]

On 5/3/2024 at 4:45 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

I can swear I remember reading that Bruen stated there were to be no other tests other than historical + common use.  

 

Uncle Festerbrook is just refusing to accept that his career defining precedent is no longer valid case law.    

Essentially, he's just throwing a temper tantrum. He's approaching this from the viewpoint that unless the Supreme Court explicitly throws out Friedman, then it's still good law.

 

That's wrong, of course, but he's going to play hardball until the Supreme Court tells him that Friedman doesn't apply anymore.

 

Certainly, he'll just find some other excuse to uphold the ban even if Friedman is explicitly struck down, unless somehow we get a different panel if the case gets GVR'ed, but at this point it's hard to speculate how this is going to play out at the Supreme Court, anyway.

[Rangerdeepv]

Even if it is GVR'd or flat out overturned via a legal precedent.........what enforcement does the SCOTUS have over any lower courts? This Festerbrook character and a couple other ding-a-lings sitting on the bench just appear to be flaunting their resistance right in front of the SCOTUS. Seriously..........what are the consequences to these judges for 'breaking the precedent'?

[davel501]

On 5/4/2024 at 1:28 PM, Rangerdeepv said:

Even if it is GVR'd or flat out overturned via a legal precedent.........what enforcement does the SCOTUS have over any lower courts? This Festerbrook character and a couple other ding-a-lings sitting on the bench just appear to be flaunting their resistance right in front of the SCOTUS. Seriously..........what are the consequences to these judges for 'breaking the precedent'?

 

At some point people arrested under these statutes have to be allowed to sue the people responsible for their enforcement. In this case, judges. 

[JTHunter]

On 5/4/2024 at 2:31 PM, davel501 said:

At some point people arrested under these statutes have to be allowed to sue the people responsible for their enforcement. In this case, judges. 

 

It has been opined numerous times that, until "qualified immunity" is at the very least modified (preferably removed), things won't change that much.  These politicians and judges that flout the laws and other rulings so frequently won't change until THEY bear a financial burden for their actions.

[starwatcher]

I wonder if SCOTUS could have a blanket ban on a judge. IE any ruling coming from them automatically gets nullified, and retried.

[Flynn]

On 5/5/2024 at 3:50 PM, starwatcher said:

I wonder if SCOTUS could have a blanket ban on a judge. IE any ruling coming from them automatically gets nullified, and retried.

 

They could theoretically do that with unsigned vacate and remands every time a bad decision is rendered and the plaintiff seeks SCOTUS intervention, but they won't as it's not what they do...

[ragsbo]

On 5/5/2024 at 2:51 PM, JTHunter said:

 

It has been opined numerous times that, until "qualified immunity" is at the very least modified (preferably removed), things won't change that much.  These politicians and judges that flout the laws and other rulings so frequently won't change until THEY bear a financial burden for their actions.

As usual, what was a good idea to protect those needing it has been perverted to protect those who don't deserve it and are using it to hide behind when they do their illegal and unconstitutional actions

 

[mab22]

On 5/5/2024 at 9:15 PM, ragsbo said:

As usual, what was a good idea to protect those needing it has been perverted to protect those who don't deserve it and are using it to hide behind when they do their illegal and unconstitutional actions

 

So Democrats using he law to thier advantage? 
(Purple on) THAT’ll never happen (purple off) 

[ragsbo]

On 5/6/2024 at 7:23 PM, mab22 said:

So Democrats ABUSING  the law to thier advantage? 
(Purple on) THAT’ll never happen (purple off) 

Fixed it for you

[Euler]

On April 11, the trial judge set May 10 as the deadline for parties to submit expert reports for discovery.

On May 3, defendants asked for a 30-day extension to that deadline, because one of their experts has some undefined emergency of indeterminate duration.

On May 7, the judge ruled on the extension. The 30-day extension is mostly denied. That particular expert's report will not be due on May 10. The issue of its due date will be taken up during the status hearing which has already been scheduled for May 16.

Edited May 8, 2024 at 04:39 AM by Euler

[Tvandermyde]

over the years we have seen the state ask for delay after delay after delay and get them. Molly tallied them up in all the cases at the time for a significant number. Judge McGlynn is not messing around he wants this merits case done. 

 

Good on him. The state would have been smart to simply ask for an extension for the single expert. but they always get greedy

[MrTriple]

On 5/8/2024 at 8:35 AM, Tvandermyde said:

over the years we have seen the state ask for delay after delay after delay and get them. Molly tallied them up in all the cases at the time for a significant number. Judge McGlynn is not messing around he wants this merits case done. 

 

Good on him. The state would have been smart to simply ask for an extension for the single expert. but they always get greedy

They've gotten so used to getting their way, that they're not used to not getting their way. 

 

The same is true of states that keep putting forward incredibly stupid legal arguments. They've always gotten away with it, and now that they have to pivot to a new legal standard, they can't do it.

[John Q Public]

They run people out of money with all the extensions, they know it and it's one of best ploys. Also, some cases become moot as there's a status change in whatever they were asking relief for. 

Edited May 8, 2024 at 05:51 PM by John Q Public

[Flynn]

On 5/8/2024 at 12:51 PM, John Q Public said:

The run people out of money with all the extensions, they know it and it's one of best ploys.

 

Sadly it's one of the legal games played by both sides... A lot of defense lawyers will attempt to get away with as many requests for extensions as possible in criminal cases, knowing the longer they push things out the less reliable witness accounts become and the more pressure on the prosecutor's office to clear the case out of the workload...

 

Out legal system is still likely the best in the world, but it has a lot of broken and abused aspects and that list of broken and abused aspects grows by the year...