Myers v. Kelly (3:23-cv-02553) (S.D. IL) - FOID Card Challenge

[Euler]

On October 10, 2023 at 08:56 PM CDT, Euler said:→

On September 27, the judge set the following schedule.

10/25: joint status report due
11/01: scheduling conference
11/07: final pretrial conference
11/18: bench trial

Presumably the judge will rule on 11/01 or 11/07 on Maag's motion to remand the case back to the state.

On October 26, defendants submitted the joint status report. Based on the status report, the judge set the following schedule.

11/01: scheduling conference is canceled

2024
5/31: discovery due
6/30: dispositive motions due
7/24: status conference
11/07: final pretrial conference (not 2023)
11/18: bench trial (not 2023)

I believe the motion to remand the case back to state court is still in play.

[mab22]

On 10/27/2023 at 7:02 PM, Euler said:

On October 26, defendants submitted the joint status report. Based on the status report, the judge set the following schedule.

11/01: scheduling conference is canceled

2024
5/31: discovery due
6/30: dispositive motions due
7/24: status conference
11/07: final pretrial conference (not 2023)
11/18: bench trial (not 2023)

I believe the motion to remand the case back to state court is still in play.

Might as well be 2030.
SMH

[Euler]

On September 13, 2023 at 05:57 PM CDT, Euler said:→

...
On September 12, plaintiffs moved to have the case remanded back to state court.

On April 22, the (federal) judge dismissed Count II of the complaint without prejudice. Count II is/was the count challenging IL's venue-shifting law. The judge also denied the plaintiff's motion to have the case remanded back to state court.

In other words, the case is now just to order the state to issue Myers a FOID, and it's staying in federal court.

[mab22]

Is it safe to say at this point that a Federal challenge to FOID could be brought, that’s in an infringement, now that this just changed to someone demanding their permission slip? 

[MrTriple]

On 4/22/2024 at 7:01 PM, Euler said:

On April 22, the (federal) judge dismissed Count II of the complaint without prejudice. Count II is/was the count challenging IL's venue-shifting law. The judge also denied the plaintiff's motion to have the case remanded back to state court.

In other words, the case is now just to order the state to issue Myers a FOID, and it's staying in federal court.

Not great on the first point, but excellent on the second point.

 

It never makes any sense to me, aside from maybe the financial burden involved, to file anywhere but federal court.

 

You can easily get a win in Illinois courts as long as you file in a conservative judicial district, but at the end of the day if the state supreme court has to get involved, you're going to lose no matter what.

 

I really wish that attorneys on our side would make more judicial use of the federal courts and quit trying to file in state courts. It's a waste of time, money, and resources to file anywhere else.

[mab22]

On 5/2/2024 at 4:20 PM, MrTriple said:

 

I really wish that attorneys on our side would make more judicial use of the federal courts and quit trying to file in state courts. It's a waste of time, money, and resources to file anywhere else.

AMEN! 🙏

[Silhouette]

Though I'm not saying that this is what is happening here, one reason to pursue things in both State and Federal courts is to create a split is "courts of last resort."  Most laws running afoul of 2A fundamental rights happen in the same circuit or suffer from precedent in a single circuit (see Friedman).  It's not like we can challenge an "assault weapons" ban in Texas because one doesn't exist.  Therefore getting the same result with different rationale or different rulings between a state supreme court and a circuit court of appeals is one route to improving the chance of SCOTUS review.  That said, judges may notice this approach and choose to find adjacent, non-binding precedent persuasive.  This type of strategy is a long shot, but it isn't totally without merit.