Jump to content

MRE

Members
  • Posts

    154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

586 profile views

MRE's Achievements

Member

Member (4/24)

  1. See my first paragraph, and multiple posts by myself and others on this board as to why that’s exactly why they wouldn’t agree to hear those conflicts issues. It likely has nothing to do with this specific case, and everything to do with Justices themselves having to fight off similar type complaints. They don’t like to take on issues unless they absolutely need to. And when they can avoid an issue, they will. Not just on these issues, but on any issue. It’s not ideal, but it’s true. Decisions on what cases they take don’t exist in a vacuum.
  2. Again, while it would be great if Justices looked at issues in a vacuum, without consideration of the current atmosphere and issues they have elsewhere, that’s just generally not how they work. Even if it’s a good argument, the chances of them taking your case are slim. Add in outside factors making it an issue they may not want to touch right now, and those odds become slim to none. in terms of the Second Amendment arguments, it again doesn’t really come down to them disagreeing with the arguments, but more likely they don’t view this as the right case, all things considered, they want to use to rule on those arguments.
  3. As a few of us have stated in this thread, it shouldn’t be surprising that the Supreme Court didn’t want to take this case. And it’s not due to Second Amendment concerns.
  4. Likely, but when I say it wouldn’t be good for Illinois, I mean in terms of the timeline it would take for that to occur. Instead of a possible 2024 Supreme Court decision, you might not be seeing a full hearing and decision until 2025 for the Illinois case. vs if the Supreme Court is able to take up the Maryland case in 2024, it might be possible for a nationally binding decision to be issued prior to the 7th Circuit here issuing a decision on the merits for the cases here. In the end, though, predicting anything like that is often just guess work. It’s frustrating, but true.
  5. It was also one of the cases that was pending before the Supreme Court when Bruen was decided, and the Supremes vacated and remanded back to the 4th Circuit to re-do following Bruen. One thing that’s true of the Court, no matter which side is in the majority: they want the lower Courts to get it right first and not have to hear it. One thing that would be interesting, and not really good for Illinois, is if Maryland loses at the 4th Circuit, but decides not to appeal to the Supreme Court to prevent a ruling with National implications.
  6. I tend to agree with this. Just remember some history here: Thomas wrote a fairly extensive and sharp dissent when the Court denied cert in the Friedman case in 2015, which provided a precursor to what would eventually be his Bruen decision. In those two respective opinions, he lambasted lower Courts for getting Heller wrong…with one of the Judges that ire was aimed clearly being Easterbrook’s and the 7th’s decision in Friedman. So I have to think Thomas would like nothing more than to use Illinois and Easterbrook, after they’ve blatantly and intentionally ignored his opinion again, as the case and Judge the Court overturns to set this precedent. However, all that being said, there has not been a case specifically on point on this issue, so they want to get it right, which usually means a final merits appeal. That could mean Maryland becomes the case in 2024.
  7. Disappointing, but not surprising. On a side note, to be really blunt and honest: I wasn’t going to say this while it was still pending, but that brief, while the argument hit the bullet points, was not well written. By that I mean it read like it was written by a college student. (Example: Don’t overuse the word “literally” in a Supreme Court brief. Better still, don’t use it at all. It matters.). Maybe that’s just venting a little, but multiple attorneys I know winced a little when reading it. Anywho, as has been repeatedly stated, these interlocutory attempts are always long shot attempts. More than one Justice who I’m confident will eventually side with us, are not fans of the shadow docket. It stinks in cases like this, but it’s true.
  8. While that might be (probably is) the opinion of some (or many) Troopers, I can almost guarantee that is not the official position of the Agency. Remember who their boss is.
  9. Also, on this point, yes the executive branch using rule making authority to effectively creating new laws is a problem that’s been allowed to fester on both the Federal and State level for years. That authority may be curtailed somewhat next year by the Supreme Court if they undo existing Court precedent known as the Chevron Doctrine (that basically allows executive agencies broad rule making authority). I don’t think it’s clear if undoing that doctrine would effect both Federal and State agencies, or just the Federal agencies (since State agencies and legislative processes are a mostly creation of State constitutions). It could depend on the wording of any Supreme Court ruling.
  10. It’s always been an interesting question what would happen if JCAR, as a committee and not the entire General Assembly, would truly object to rules to the point of saying they can’t be adopted, going against a Governors office insisting they should be. By statute the General Assembly can veto the rules…but it would present an interesting constitutional question on separation of powers. But, that’s ultimately not going to happen here. The General Assembly isn’t going to stop rules, which are effectively the Governor setting out how he chooses to enforce the law (that he is tasked to do as Governor), when the Governor is of the same party and they both wanted this law.
  11. The Emergency Rules (as terrible and unclear as they are) legally went into effect when they were published, and will remain in effect until, I believe, February or until permanent rules are adopted (whichever is sooner). Or unless a Court halts them. ISP has a year from filing to adopt permanent rules (which are filed at the same time as the emergency rules), or they are withdrawn. That doesn’t change the fact that the statute is still the law, it just complicates how it could be enforced. JCAR typically utilizes one of three options during this part of the second notice period: issue an objection to the rules, wherein ISP would be asked to amend them; give recommendations, which ISP would need to respond to; or issue a certificate of no objection, after which ISP can formally adopt the rules. It’s worth keeping in mind that these are not “JCAR’s rules”, they’re ISP rules. JCAR is the legislative panel charged by statute to review them. It’s the Agency that writes them and adopts them. While I somewhat sympathize with the position ISP is in “attempting” to create clarity from ambiguous chaos, they aren’t innocent in this by any means in how long they waited to file their rules. They could’ve done so in the Spring if they wanted to. And by “They” I also mean their boss: Governor Pritzker. Make no mistake, it’s his office that ultimately controls when and what rules get published.
  12. Well the first domino of my predictions fell this afternoon, when JCAR took no action, including not issuing a certificate of no objection. This makes it virtually impossible procedurally for the permanent rules to be adopted before Jan 1. This obviously bolsters the arguments this afternoon in the Southern District. We’ll see what happens.
  13. according to their calendar, after this Friday there are no conferences set until 1-5, so this isn’t surprising. And , similar to what I said before, I tend to agree with Todd here.
  14. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled in favor of ISP, in a unanimous opinion https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/648d8ed7-be80-4d48-9cdc-efb5a69178e0/Hart v. Illinois State Police, 2023 IL 128275.pdf
×
×
  • Create New...