Herrera v. Raoul (1:23-cv-00532)

[cbunt32]

Another lawsuit filed

 

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66766836/herrera-v-raoul-in-his-official-capacity-as-attorney-general-for-the/

 

 

 

Herrera v Raoul Complaint.pdf

 

 

 

Edited January 28, 2023 at 02:14 PM by mauserme
Added Complaint

[steveTA84]

Awesome!

[thepointbeing]

It's unfortunate that IL politicians don't have a primum non nocere oath.

[Euler]

On February 16, Herrera filed a motion to consolidate Herrera v Raoul and Bevis v Naperville into Goldman v Highland Park and to reassign to the court in Bevis. Bevis and Goldman concur.

 

Edited February 17, 2023 at 03:49 AM by Euler

[Euler]

On February 27, this case was transferred from the court of Judge Mary M. Rowland to the court of Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins.

 

Rowland was the judge for Luce v Kelly and Marszalek v Kelly (both of which went nowhere). She is still the judge for Singleton v Kelly (which is also going nowhere).

 

Jenkins is a brand new Biden appointee.

 

Wikipedia said:

...

She has taught trial advocacy courses at Loyola University Chicago School of Law. She has also taught at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law on the Chicago gun violence epidemic.

...

 

The header on CourtListener hasn't been updated as I type this.

 

Edited March 1, 2023 at 08:51 AM by Euler

[Upholder]

The Attorney General and ISP Director Kelly's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction:

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.429768/gov.uscourts.ilnd.429768.52.0.pdf

[Euler]

On March 22, the judge set a hearing for April 6 on motions for a TRO and a preliminary injunction.

[lawman]

On 1/28/2023 at 10:27 AM, thepointbeing said:

It's unfortunate that IL politicians don't have a primum non nocere oath.

They violate their oath to uphold the Constitution all the time, so what would stop them from violating this?

[Euler]

On 3/24/2023 at 8:40 PM, Euler said:

On March 22, the judge set a hearing for April 6 on motions for a TRO and a preliminary injunction.

 

On March 27, defendants filed a motion to postpone the April 6 hearing, due to a schedule conflict on the part of their lead counsel.

 

On March 28, the judge granted the motion and rescheduled the hearing for April 17.

[JTHunter]

On 3/28/2023 at 2:31 PM, Euler said:

On March 27, defendants filed a motion to postpone the April 6 hearing, due to a schedule conflict on the part of their lead counsel.

 

On March 28, the judge granted the motion and rescheduled the hearing for April 17.

 

NUTZ !!

[Molly B.]

The virtual hearing on Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction  reset to April 17, 2023 at 10 am.

 

Today.

[Euler]

On 4/17/2023 at 10:12 AM, Molly B. said:

The virtual hearing on Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction  reset to April 17, 2023 at 10 am.

 

Today.

 

So apparently there was a working dial-in number for people to attend remotely (unlike the Barrett hearing last week). I didn't see that until just now. Oops. Oh, well.

[bmyers]

So is there an update from the hearing?

[Molly B.]

Apr 17, 2023

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: Motion hearing held. Motion for TRO and preliminary injunction 4 is taken under advisement. Mailed notice. (jlj, ) (Entered: 04/17/2023)
 

[bmyers]

Thank you for the update

[Upholder]

Denied:

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.429768/gov.uscourts.ilnd.429768.75.0.pdf

[Upholder]

[Upholder]

[Upholder]

[Upholder]

[Upholder]

[solareclipse2]

Wait...that sounds like interest balancing and I thought they couldn't do that anymore?

[Upholder]

On 4/26/2023 at 7:48 AM, solareclipse2 said:

Wait...that sounds like interest balancing and I thought they couldn't do that anymore?

 

They cannot interest balance with regards to the right protected by the 2nd amendment.  They can (and should) during the decision on issuing preliminary injunctions -- the kicker being that the state has no interest in enforcing an unconstitutional law and thus should lose at this step every time.

[Molly B.]

They can't interest balance and that's why decision like this will get overturned. 

[Plinkermostly]

It's like they totally missed . . . everything (Bruen et al)

but it's all they got (which is good) -- "FEELINGS, nothing more than feelings . .  . "

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

"particularly dangerous" is not the standard.  

 

And the judge interest balanced again and again.  

[Flynn]

C'mon Man! They anti-gun judges are literaly making stuff up now, not only are they interest balancing that is moot, but now they are coining new 'scary' spinwords like "particularly dangerous" to justify bans!   They honestly should be ashamed of themselves!  Really they should be ashamed of themselves!

[Yeti]

This ruling is “particularly unconstitutional”…

[Upholder]

Reporting today based on the ruling on Wednesday:

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judge-declines-block-illinois-gun-law-calls-assault-rifles-particularly-dangerous

[Euler]

On April 26, plaintiffs appealed the denial of an injunction to the 7th Circuit, which has (expeditiously) assigned case # 23-1793 (docket) to the appeal.

 

It seems a bit moot after the Barnett injunction.

 

Edited April 29, 2023 at 04:24 AM by Euler