Posted on 06/21/2024 6:30:15 AM PDT by CFW
The Supreme Court will release Opinions this morning at 10:00 a.m. Attorneys at scotusblog will be in the press room and live-blogging the Opinions as they are received.
There were four opinions released yesterday which leaves 19 cases remaining for this term. Yesterday's thread on those opinions is here:
For those keeping score, thus far Roberts has written 2 opinions; Thomas 7, Alito, 4, Kagan 5, Gorsuch 2, Kavanaugh 5, Sotomayor, 7, Barrett 3, and Jackson 4. (three cases were per curiam)
Cases of interest and great importance that remain undecided are the Trump immunity case (Trump v. U.S.), the Fischer case (relating to Jan 6 and Trump), and the two cases relating to the Chevron deference issues, Loper Bright and Relentless.
There is also a 2nd Amendment case, Rahimi, regarding possession of a firearm by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders.
And of course, there are the First Amendment case. First is NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, then Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, and finally Missouri v. Murthy Issues: Whether respondents have Article III standing; (2) whether the government’s challenged conduct transformed private social media companies’ content-moderation decisions into state action and violated respondents’ First Amendment rights; and (3) whether the terms and breadth of the preliminary injunction are proper.
A list of the cases for this term can be found at October 23 term
Happy SCOTUS Opinion day. Say a prayer for the Justices.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
In the Rahimi case,
Discussing the application by the lower courts of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Roberts writes that “some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases. These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber.” Otherwise, he explains, the Second Amendment would only provide protection to “muskets and sabers.”
Lots here elaborating on how lower courts should apply the methodology going forward. “Why and how the regulation burdens the right are central to this inquiry. For example, if laws at the founding regulated firearm use to address particular problems, that will be a strong indicator that contemporary laws imposing similar restrictions of similar reasons fall within a permissible category of regulations.”
Applying that methodology to this case, Roberts looks at early English and early American gun laws and concludes that they “confirm what common sense suggests: When an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed.”
Although the federal law at issue here is not identical to those laws, Roberts concedes, they do “not need to be.”
Roberts rejects Rahimi’s argument that Heller established a blanket right to have a handgun in your home, which this law would violate.
That’s from Roberts. I believe Thomas has the right of it in his dissent. Read his dissent if you have time. It is an excellent treatise on our Second Amendment rights.
"Discussing the application by the lower courts of the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Roberts writes that "some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases. These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber." Otherwise, he explains, the Second Amendment would only provide protection to "muskets and sabers."
Lots here elaborating on how lower courts should apply the methodology going forward. "Why and how the regulation burdens the right are central to this inquiry. For example, if laws at the founding regulated firearm use to address particular problems, that will be a strong indicator that contemporary laws imposing similar restrictions of similar reasons fall within a permissible category of regulations."
Applying that methodology to this case, Roberts looks at early English and early American gun laws and concludes that they "confirm what common sense suggests: When an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed."
Although the federal law at issue here is not identical to those laws, Roberts concedes, they do "not need to be."
Roberts rejects Rahimi's argument that Heller established a blanket right to have a handgun in your home, which this law would violate.
You beat me to it :)
Thank you again. In simple language what does this mean for our prisoners?
The “THREAT” of the Second Amendment is the ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
That we can FIGHT BACK.
This is a huge win for the anti-2A crowd. Thomas was entirely correct in his dissent.
I thought they weren’t issuing opinions on Thursday. Are they? I was thinking it was just Wednesday and Friday.
With the end of the term next week, we never know. Right now the court’s calendar shows an opinion day on Wednesday. They may add a opinion day come Monday morning and have one on Thursday or Friday as well. At the moment, the Thu, Fri dates are clear so it could be either day.
Great, thanks again
There has been a lot of Courts trying to creatively interpret Bruen to regurgitate laws already deemed illegal under Bruen. I may be reading this wrong, but it seems Roberts took a swipe at those attempts in this decision. Also, seems they are saying you can temporarily remove someone's 2d rights, but only through due process and only until a threat no longer exists. That will be abused in States like CA, IL and NY. But eventually that abuse will end up in front of SCOTUS.
Yes, and just to pile on here, I think I could remove the context of the 2nd amendment here and apply Trump’s right of free speech from his NY case and the note the lack of due process in Merchan’s removal of that right. Changes the amendment, but the application is the same.
Are you living in Thailand while the visa process goes on?
Thank you for posting this thread, and, for the Opinion updates.
Very much appreciated.
Thank you for all the work on this.
Thank you again. In simple language what does this mean for our prisoners?
If they rule for Fischer then those convictions against the Jan 6 Defendants on obstruction will have to be reversed. Of course, knowing the DOJ they would go back and try to resentence them for more time on the other charges. But if not, prison time would have to be reduced for the time sentenced for obstruction. If part of their prison time was “24 months for obstruction” that would have to be deducted from time sentenced to serve.
'Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose'
They will always come back with that to continue limiting gun rights.
That's a good point... and it leads me toward both an appreciation for SCOTUS' restraint in not going beyond the cases in front of them in their decisions and also a frustration with them for exercising that same restraint.
The problem is this: whenever they leave such decisions "half spoken", somebody is always going to ram through a violation of rights -- which will continue for YEARS -- until the matter can be finally and thoroughly spoken for at this level.
Thank you for posting this thread, and, for the Opinion updates.
Very much appreciated.
You’re welcome. I’m developing a SCOTUS ping list and am adding those that show an interest in these rulings. I’ve added your name to the list.
If issued next Friday, then even if the SC does not grant even limited immunity to Trump then the clock starts again with the 88 days ticking until the J6 case can start which means no earlier than September 25. With a week or two for jury selection at the least the trial can't even start until early October and most likely no verdict by Election Day. However, I think they will rule for at least limited immunity so the DC district court has to spend weeks, maybe months, on determining what is outside of the limited immunity which means... NO J6 trial before Election Day (or maybe ever).
Took me nearly two years to legally bring my wife over from Ukraine. This was nearly 20 years ago.
I could've probably shaved a few months off the timeline if I knew what I was doing but I was a lowly E-4 in the military and didn't have the financial resources for an immigration attorney. I did it all myself off of Google.
Erlinger v. United States
This case is not about NY v. Trump, but actually, it is.
The case discusses the need for due process and unanimity in Jury verdicts.
Every justice was thinking NY v. Trump when this was written.
Any Court reviewing the propriety of the convictions handed down in NY v. Trump, will cite to this case.
Isn’t Fischer v US the J6 case? Trying to remember myself if there’s another politically charged case besides immunity and Fischer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.