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

[Silhouette]

Indeed, it has now been marked on the docket as "relisted" again:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public\23-879.html

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 5/28/2024 at 12:33 PM, Silhouette said:

Indeed, it has now been marked on the docket as "relisted" again:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public\23-879.html

 

They didn't relist them all twice just to dump it.  This is a good sign.   I also think it is a good sign that Sotomayor recently stated that she cries in private after many of the recent rulings, and stated more bombshell rulings are incoming. 

 

Maybe the court is just going to keep relisting with the intention of holding it over the 7th like a sword of Damocles.  If they play the en banc games like in the 5th and 9th, maybe the high court one day just suddenly takes it from them. 

[Silhouette]

Sorry.  The above post got launched prematurely. 

 

When a case is relisted, it means that it came up for discussion (at least nominally) at the conference and will be discussed again the next week (hence the term distributed).  The related phrase "rescheduled" sometimes happened before a conference after the case is "distributed", which delays the discussion typically for another week.  Sometimes cases are rescheduled multiple times.  Cases are often relisted multiple times.  In recent years, cases that are ultimately accepted are relisted at least once and often multiple times.  ...but so are cases that are rejected with written dissent.

 

A number of years ago, ScotusBlog discussed the vernacular and the differences here:  https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/11/reschedule-watch/#:~:text=When the Supreme Court reschedules,after they have discussed it.

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 5/28/2024 at 12:54 PM, Silhouette said:

Sorry.  The above post got launched prematurely. 

 

When a case is relisted, it means that it came up for discussion (at least nominally) at the conference and will be discussed again the next week (hence the term distributed).  The related phrase "rescheduled" sometimes happened before a conference after the case is "distributed", which delays the discussion typically for another week.  Sometimes cases are rescheduled multiple times.  Cases are often relisted multiple times.  In recent years, cases that are ultimately accepted are relisted at least once and often multiple times.  ...but so are cases that are rejected with written dissent.

 

A number of years ago, ScotusBlog discussed the vernacular and the differences here:  https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/11/reschedule-watch/#:~:text=When the Supreme Court reschedules,after they have discussed it.

 

See, I don't think we are getting relisted just for a justice to write a dissent. That makes no sense when they flat out rejected Bianchi.  

 

Bianchi got rejected, with no dissents.  If that case isn't worthy of a dissent by any of the justices, then I don't see why our cases (which IIRC are not as far along) would get a dissent.

 

 

[yurimodin]

On 5/28/2024 at 12:53 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

  I also think it is a good sign that Sotomayor recently stated that she cries in private after many of the recent rulings, and stated more bombshell rulings are incoming. 

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[Silhouette]

On 5/28/2024 at 1:06 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

Bianchi got rejected, with no dissents.  If that case isn't worthy of a dissent by any of the justices, then I don't see why our cases (which IIRC are not as far along) would get a dissent.

 

 

 

Bianchi was an interlocutory appeal (judgement not yet final even though the case itself is MUCH older), which means that they were appealing before judgement.  (I admit that they had good reason, but nevertheless, there was not a final judgement to appeal.)  Barnett and associated cases have received final judgement from the inferior courts. 

 

I don't claim to have any idea what the Justices will do, but I don't think that you can read too much into Bianchi.

[MRE]

On 5/28/2024 at 1:45 PM, Silhouette said:

 

Bianchi was an interlocutory appeal (judgement not yet final even though the case itself is MUCH older), which means that they were appealing before judgement.  (I admit that they had good reason, but nevertheless, there was not a final judgement to appeal.)  Barnett and associated cases have received final judgement from the inferior courts. 

 

I don't claim to have any idea what the Justices will do, but I don't think that you can read too much into Bianchi.

That’s not entirely accurate, both are still interlocutory, but there are different procedural postures between Barnett and Bianchi. Bianchi was recently argued and is awaiting the 4th’s en banc opinion. So there is no ruling from the appellate court yet there, the appeal essentially skipped en banc straight to the Supremes. That wasn’t surprising at all that they kicked it back “before final ruling”.

 

In the 7th, the Easterbrook opinion being appealed was on an interlocutory question, but the overall cases are still pending (see Southern District of Illinois) and have not been decided on the merits. The question before the court is essentially that the 7th’s opinion, which the Southern District is now bound to abide by, was incorrect. So there is a “final” ruling in some aspect as to how the 7th circuit has intepreted and will apply Bruen, but there is not yet a ruling on the merits in the Southern District (that’s why McGlynn is expediting things).  Given this status, the odds still favor the Supremes not taking the case….BUT they might do something else. What is perhaps an in between possibility, is that they issue their ruling on Rahimi, that in some ways includes questions presented in Barnett, and reverse and remand Barnett to the 7th to redo in light of Rahimi. I think either that or a denial with a dissent are the most probable outcomes right now.  

Edited May 28, 2024 at 07:28 PM by MRE

[EdDinIL]

I think a lot of us would be happy if SCOTUS just said, "You can't infringe on someone's 2A rights until it's been fully litigated, please reinstate the stay".  It still baffles me that government gets the W there, not us.  

[Matt B]

On 5/28/2024 at 2:26 PM, MRE said:

That’s not entirely accurate, both are still interlocutory, but there are different procedural postures between Barnett and Bianchi. Bianchi was recently argued and is awaiting the 4th’s en banc opinion. So there is no ruling from the appellate court yet there, the appeal essentially skipped en banc straight to the Supremes. That wasn’t surprising at all that they kicked it back “before final ruling”.

 

In the 7th, the Easterbrook opinion being appealed was on an interlocutory question, but the overall cases are still pending (see Southern District of Illinois) and have not been decided on the merits. The question before the court is essentially that the 7th’s opinion, which the Southern District is now bound to abide by, was incorrect. So there is a “final” ruling in some aspect as to how the 7th circuit has intepreted and will apply Bruen, but there is not yet a ruling on the merits in the Southern District (that’s why McGlynn is expediting things).  Given this status, the odds still favor the Supremes not taking the case….BUT they might do something else. What is perhaps an in between possibility, is that they issue their ruling on Rahimi, that in some ways includes questions presented in Barnett, and reverse and remand Barnett to the 7th to redo in light of Rahimi. I think either that or a denial with a dissent are the most probable outcomes right now.  

I struggle with why scotus would outright deny Bianchi if they were planning on granting cert in the Illinois cases… ditto if they felt Rahimi was going to answer some questions on hardware bans. Unfortunately I think a cert denial with a dissent is coming.

[ragsbo]

On 5/28/2024 at 2:43 PM, EdDinIL said:

I think a lot of us would be happy if SCOTUS just said, "You can't infringe on someone's 2A rights until it's been fully litigated, please reinstate the stay".  It still baffles me that government gets the W there, not us.  

Exactly

[MRE]

On 5/28/2024 at 3:33 PM, Matt B said:

I struggle with why scotus would outright deny Bianchi if they were planning on granting cert in the Illinois cases… ditto if they felt Rahimi was going to answer some questions on hardware bans. Unfortunately I think a cert denial with a dissent is coming.

I think the odds are that you are correct…the only possible reason for not treating Bianchi the same is, as stated earlier in the thread, the procedural difference that the 4th en banc hasn’t yet actually ruled, which they theoretically (although not likely) could do correctly, and the Court doesn’t like to step in unless absolutely necessary.

[Upholder]

Mark W. Smith's take on lack of an order this morning about the 6 Illinois cases:

 

 

[Euler]

On May 28, 2024 at 01:45 PM CDT, Silhouette said:→

Bianchi was an interlocutory appeal (judgement not yet final even though the case itself is MUCH older), which means that they were appealing before judgement. (I admit that they had good reason, but nevertheless, there was not a final judgement to appeal.) Barnett and associated cases have received final judgement from the inferior courts.
...

On May 28, 2024 at 02:26 PM CDT, MRE said:→

That’s not entirely accurate, both are still interlocutory ...

It not accurate at all.

Bianchi was appealed AFTER oral arguments, but before a ruling. The Bianchi petition was all about short-circuiting a ruling at the appellate level.

Meanwhile, none of the Illinois AWBs have even had a trial, much less reached a final decision at all, including Barnett. (Viramontes has a final decision now, but that's a Cook County AWB that was decided based on the state AWB.) The state AWB cases have so far been only about a preliminary injunction, including the CA7 appeal. The Illinois AWB petitions have been about the logic that CA7 used to stay the Southern Illinois injunction and affirm the Northern Illinois lack of one (i.e., Friedman, which CA7 said is good law until the Supreme Court says explicitly otherwise).

McGlynn seems more than willing to bury Friedman on its own terms. Of course, he has to know that CA7 will reverse him, but I suspect he also knows that the Supreme Court would likely also copy/paste his ruling in reversing CA7 (as long as he has a national-class ruling to begin with). However, there are more 2A fires around the country than the Illinois AWB. "People aren't people, and arms aren't arms, therefore 2A doesn't apply" is everywhere.

As I've said before, even if the Supreme Court takes these petitions, the trials still have to occur, assuming the state chooses not to stipulate a victory for the plaintiffs after a Supreme Court ruling.

[mab22]

On 5/28/2024 at 6:46 PM, Euler said:

 

It not accurate at all.

Bianchi was appealed AFTER oral arguments, but before a ruling. The Bianchi petition was all about short-circuiting a ruling at the appellate level.

Meanwhile, none of the Illinois AWBs have even had a trial, much less reached a final decision at all, including Barnett. (Viramontes has a final decision now, but that's a Cook County AWB that was decided based on the state AWB.) The state AWB cases have so far been only about a preliminary injunction, including the CA7 appeal. The Illinois AWB petitions have been about the logic that CA7 used to stay the Southern Illinois injunction and affirm the Northern Illinois lack of one (i.e., Friedman, which CA7 said is good law until the Supreme Court says explicitly otherwise).

McGlynn seems more than willing to bury Friedman on its own terms. Of course, he has to know that CA7 will reverse him, but I suspect he also knows that the Supreme Court would likely also copy/paste his ruling in reversing CA7 (as long as he has a national-class ruling to begin with). However, there are more 2A fires around the country than the Illinois AWB. "People aren't people, and arms aren't arms, therefore 2A doesn't apply" is everywhere.

As I've said before, even if the Supreme Court takes these petitions, the trials still have to occur, assuming the state chooses not to stipulate a victory for the plaintiffs after a Supreme Court ruling.

 

Wasn’t Caulkins v Pritzker finalized in IL Supreme Court? 
I think Caulkins appealed to SCOTUS but it never went anywhere.
 

[Euler]

"Final" generally means a ruling for a trial. Caulkins got a ruling against him, which he appealed and petitioned everywhere he could. It's a dead case, and has been for a while.

[Silhouette]

I apologize.  I definitely erred regarding the status of the Barnett case.  I read the "decisions below" section and misunderstood.  Euler is clearly right.

[TomKoz]

Meanwhile, since Illinois passed their unconstitutional laws our Rights are being denied and violated.
 

How about an Amendment to US Constitution that laws (local, State, and Federal) restricting Rights cannot be enforced unless fully adjudicated through the Supreme Court !

 

I’m guessing cases then will NOT take years working through the “system”!!

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 5/28/2024 at 3:33 PM, Matt B said:

I struggle with why scotus would outright deny Bianchi if they were planning on granting cert in the Illinois cases… ditto if they felt Rahimi was going to answer some questions on hardware bans. Unfortunately I think a cert denial with a dissent is coming.

 

My point is if SCOTUS is just going to deny the IL cases, then they should have done that when they dumped Bianchi with no dissents.   Why a denial and no dissent for Bianchi, but then a denial with a dissent for IL?   Bianchi was already GVR'd right?  I would think if a case was going to get a dissent, Bianchi would be it, considering it has already been before the court. 

 

I don't think the court will take up our cases, but I think there is a good chance of them sending this all back to the 7th with a scolding to follow Bruen and that their military test is BS.  Maybe even one of them will send Easterbrook a certified letter that Friedman is bad case law.

 

[mab22]

On 5/28/2024 at 9:41 PM, TomKoz said:

Meanwhile, since Illinois passed their unconstitutional laws our Rights are being denied and violated.
 

How about an Amendment to US Constitution that laws (local, State, and Federal) restricting Rights cannot be enforced unless fully adjudicated through the Supreme Court !

 

I’m guessing cases then will NOT take years working through the “system”!!

I think they kinda tried that, in a similar fashion, with the 9th amendment?
 

[davel501]

On 5/28/2024 at 9:43 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

My point is if SCOTUS is just going to deny the IL cases, then they should have done that when they dumped Bianchi with no dissents.   Why a denial and no dissent for Bianchi, but then a denial with a dissent for IL?   Bianchi was already GVR'd right?  I would think if a case was going to get a dissent, Bianchi would be it, considering it has already been before the court. 

 

I don't think the court will take up our cases, but I think there is a good chance of them sending this all back to the 7th with a scolding to follow Bruen and that their military test is BS.  Maybe even one of them will send Easterbrook a certified letter that Friedman is bad case law.

 

 

Mark Smith's latest video talked about how there's 3 options. 1) Someone is writing an epic concurrence on how the 7th got it completely wrong but the case isn't ready yet. 2) an epic dissent on how the 7th got it completely wrong and so did the majority on scotus. 3) cert is granted. 

[yurimodin]

IIRC it got rescheduled to tomorrow so I guess a day's worth of patience might be the best option here.

[Upholder]

On 5/28/2024 at 11:21 PM, davel501 said:

Mark Smith's latest video talked about how there's 3 options. 1) Someone is writing an epic concurrence on how the 7th got it completely wrong but the case isn't ready yet. 2) an epic dissent on how the 7th got it completely wrong and so did the majority on scotus. 3) cert is granted. 

 

There is also the possibility that they are holding it in abeyance until the Rahimi decision is published and will at that point GVR one or more of the Illinois cases.

[yurimodin]

On 5/29/2024 at 9:03 AM, Upholder said:

 

There is also the possibility that they are holding it in abeyance until the Rahimi decision is published and will at that point GVR one or more of the Illinois cases.

That sounds about right. Supreme Can-kickers Of The United States.

[Upholder]

Rahimi will be published by the end of June, so it wouldn't be kicking the can far.

[davel501]

On 5/29/2024 at 9:03 AM, Upholder said:

 

There is also the possibility that they are holding it in abeyance until the Rahimi decision is published and will at that point GVR one or more of the Illinois cases.

 

I've heard that too but I'm struggling to make the connection between the cases. I expect a narrow loss for Rahimi because he signed away his rights. It would seem weird for them to drop in a "P.S. Friedman isn't good law" in that ruling. 

[Euler]

Rahimi didn't "sign[] away his rights." He did acknowledge the existence of the DV protection order after the hearing for it. Rahimi is about the constitutionality of that order.

Indeed, I also see no connection between Rahimi (DV protection orders) and Barnett (AWBs).

[burningspear]

The reason you see no connection is because this is none. 

[Euler]

On May 24, defendants filed a joint status report with plaintiffs. They propose the week of September 16 for a bench trial.

[davel501]

On 5/29/2024 at 3:55 PM, Euler said:

Rahimi didn't "sign[] away his rights." He did acknowledge the existence of the DV protection order after the hearing for it. Rahimi is about the constitutionality of that order.

Indeed, I also see no connection between Rahimi (DV protection orders) and Barnett (AWBs).

 

I can't find a copy of the order but the thought is when he signed the order he agreed to abide by the terms of it, admitting it was correct. His failure to challenge it is thought to be fatal to his case. 

 

I kind of hope scotus takes that out. 

[MRE]

On 5/29/2024 at 3:55 PM, Euler said:

Rahimi didn't "sign[] away his rights." He did acknowledge the existence of the DV protection order after the hearing for it. Rahimi is about the constitutionality of that order.

Indeed, I also see no connection between Rahimi (DV protection orders) and Barnett (AWBs).

it’s unlikely they will connect the two, but it is possible the author (especially if Thomas) could use the opinion as an opportunity to restate the Bruen/Heller test, expressly stating in the opinion that some circuit courts (*cough* 7th) are not applying it correctly, then continue to evaluate this specific case under Bruen/Heller. They *could* then reverse and remand Barnett to the 7th with that language, even if some might call it dicta, that tells them they’re wrong and to get it right. This possibility exists because The question before them with Barnett is not on the merits of Barnett, but on the interpretation and mandated application of Bruen. It would be an opportunity for them to force the correct analysis to be used as the case on the merits works its way up, instead of the pile of dung the 7th put together that currently must be used by the district courts. Call it, an Order for efficiency, if you will.
 

is it likely? Not the likeliest of scenarios, but it is possible. 

Edited May 30, 2024 at 03:19 PM by MRE