MO v US - States' Rights

[Euler]

Filed October 3 to the Supreme Court's shadow docket:

Application for stay said:

... So in 2021, Missouri passed a law -- the Second Amendment Preservation Act -- publicly stating the legislature's interpretation of the Second Amendment, prohibiting Missouri's local governments from helping federal officials to enforce federal laws not in line with that interpretation, and creating a remedy akin to § 1983 against Missouri officials for violations of the Second Amendment.

In response, the United States sued Missouri. The United States does not dispute -- and has in fact conceded -- that Missouri has a right under the Tenth Amendment not to lend its resources to assist federal enforcement. ... So the United States instead sued under a novel theory that a State cannot exercise its Tenth Amendment authority if the State's factual reason for doing so is mistaken. ...

The district court accepted this novel theory ... [and] struck down the Act in its entirety.
...
Then, last Friday, September 29, the Eighth Circuit denied Missouri's stay motion in a one-line order.
...
Applicants thus respectfully request immediate relief to maintain the status quo of Missouri's duly enacted legislation. Applicants request that this Court issue (1) a temporary administrative stay to permit Missouri's Second Amendment Preservation Act to remain in force while the Court considers this Application, and issue (2) an order -- staying the district court's injunction pending the Eighth Circuit's decision on the merits -- that will allow the parties the opportunity to seek timely review of that decision from this Court.
...

Edited October 11, 2023 at 02:54 AM by Euler

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

I generally don't follow many cases outside of the Illinois cases. This is one that interests me.

[Euler]

October 20, the US Supreme Court declined to stay the injunction against the law. Gorsuch issued a brief statement that said Thomas was the only justice that would have stayed it, however Gorsuch and Alito agreed with the other 6 justices only because of the specific details of this particular law.

Gorsuch said:→

...
With the understanding that the district court "prohibited" only "implementation and enforcement" of H. B. 85 by the State of "Missouri and its officers, agents, and employees" and "any others in active concert with such individuals" ..., I agree with the denial of the application for a stay under the present circumstances.
...

If I understand correctly, the injunction only prohibits the State of Missouri from enforcing the Act against subordinate governments. Since private individuals could still sue under the Act for violation of their 2nd Amendment rights, the Supreme Court did not stay the injunction.

This ruling (to do nothing) regards only a stay on an injunction issued by the district court. The case itself might end up back at the Supreme Court later.

[Glock43]

Isn’t the Missouri statue pretty much modeled on the immigration “sanctuary” model?

 

Beside the subject matter are there any legal differences between the two?

[Euler]

I haven't read the Missouri Act, but supporters described it as modeled after the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act).