Gray v Jennings - 2A irreparable injury

[Euler]

SAF and FPC have petitioned the case to the US Supreme Court on an interlocutory basis. A docket number has not yet been assigned.

Petition for certiorari said:

...
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the infringement of Second Amendment rights constitutes per se irreparable injury.
...
The Constitution guarantees individual rights that are fundamental and inalienable; it does not promulgate a schedule of compensation the Government must pay if it wishes to restrict speech, engage in unreasonable searches, or ban the possession of common firearms. This Court has accordingly recognized that the rights secured by our fundamental charter belong to a class of "important, but not easily quantifiable, nonpecuniary rights" that are "not readily reducible to monetary valuation." ... And from these two foundational principles a third follows: in a suit for the violation of one of these fundamental constitutional rights, the remedy at law -- money damages -- is wholly inadequate, due to the intangible nature of the harm that has been suffered. As this Court has stated in the context of the Freedom of Speech, "[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury." ... And so long as the other traditional factors are met, ... that irreparable injury will justify a preliminary injunction putting a halt to the constitutional violation while the case progresses.

The panel below acknowledged that this is the rule that applies under the First Amendment -- in step with every other federal court of appeals -- but it somehow concluded that it does not apply to the Second Amendment. It accordingly declined to enjoin Delaware's bans on common firearms and magazines (which the State dubs "assault weapons" and "large capacity magazines") without even inquiring into whether those bans are likely unconstitutional, based on Petitioners' failure to establish an irreparable harm other than the loss of their Second Amendment rights. ...
...
Petitioners Gray [et al.] ... filed suit challenging Delaware's ban on certain semiautomatic firearms on November 16, 2022. ... Petitioners Graham [et al.] ... filed suit challenging Delaware's magazine ban on January 12, 2023. ... Both cases were consolidated with Delaware State Sportsmen's Ass'n v. Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security, another suit pending in the same court that challenged both the firearms and magazine bans. ...
...
Prior to consolidation, Petitioners ... had each respectively sought preliminary injunctive relief against the challenged bans. ...
...
... [The district court] concluded that Petitioners failed to show irreparable harm, rejecting their argument that the deprivation of Second Amendment rights necessarily constitutes an irreparable injury. ...

Petitioners and the Delaware State Sportsmen's Association plaintiffs all appealed, and their appeals were consolidated in the Third Circuit. On July 14, 2024, that court affirmed. ...

The panel primarily based its holding on the conclusion that the challengers failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. ...

The panel also recognized that the Third Circuit had indeed deemed "constitutional harms irreparable" in previous cases; but it insisted that those precedents all fell within an "exception to our rule: we presume that First Amendment harms are irreparable." ... That exception, according to the panel, was justified by "[u]nique First Amendment doctrines" and does not apply in the context of any other constitutional rights. ...
...

Edited September 18, 2024 at 06:24 AM by Euler

[Euler]

docket

[TomKoz]

I like !!

Laws UNconstitutional Until PROVEN Constitutional at highest Court !!!

Edited September 19, 2024 at 05:12 AM by TomKoz

[Euler]

On October 18, Delaware waived its right to respond.

On October 28, the Court requested a response, anyway, due November 27.

Edited November 17, 2024 at 05:14 AM by Euler

[Euler]

On November 20, Delaware requested an extension from November 27 to December 27 to file its response.

[TomKoz]

They need more time to figure out How to get themselves out of this quagmire.

In other words they are like “Oh Sheet, what do we do now” ?

[TomKoz]

For the lawyer types here, am I correct in assuming that IF the petitioners/plaintiffs prevail (win) on this case  … that pretty much Any new 2A law that the anti’s pass will not be enforceable UNTIL said law is proven Constitutional by the Supreme Court of US ?

[Euler]

The Supreme Court would still not be a legislative or executive body. Laws are enforceable upon enactment by the executive (or override if vetoed). All laws are assumed constitutional unless determined by a court not to be.

This case would basically put the 2A on equal footing with other Bill of Rights amendments, so that challenges to new laws would result in similar preliminary injunctions pending litigation. Such challenges would still need to be credible and would still be impeachable.

[TomKoz]

Seems like this would be a HUGE Win for 2A Rights !!

[EdDinIL]

Scheduled for conference tomorrow along with the Snope and Ocean State Tactical cases found elsewhere in this forum, just tagging this here to bring it up front.

[EdDinIL]

Cert was denied.

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011325zor_5425.pdf

[Upholder]

Not surprising, but disappointing as this would have had significant impact on the games that the various anti-gun states and cities have been playing.  There would be little point in passing an unconstitutional law if SCOTUS had directed that injunctions be issued in such cases while the case is heard.

[TomKoz]

That sucks !!

[Molly B.]