https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c88Hpp3zwtQ
So it looks like the CA AW ban is being sent back down to the Federal court where it was already ruled unconstitutional . Interestingly enough , the judge in that case was Judge Benitez and he used the text and tradition approach like the SCOTUS did in Bruan when coming to his decision a year ago .
So the Federal district judge found it unconstitutional using the same standard of review as the SCOTUS just did and the 3 judge panel at the 9th circuit also found it unconstitutional . I believe it then was either excepted en-banc or was appealed to be heard en-banc when they placed it on hold awaiting the outcome of the Bruan case being heard at the SCOTUS at the time .
My question is . since it had already been ruled on at the 9th by a 3 judge panel why does it go all the way back to the district judge ? On the whole I don't care really because judge Benitez's ruling was validated in the recent Bruan case so I suspect the outcome will not be any different . I just don't get why it goes all the way back down . The only reason I can think of is that the state did not make arguments based on text and tradition but rather the now extinct 2 step process .
Also seems likely Banetiz will order a preliminary injunction against the state on enforcing the AW ban which the 9th will over rule but still , I bet the judge does it anyway .
So it looks like the CA AW ban is being sent back down to the Federal court where it was already ruled unconstitutional . Interestingly enough , the judge in that case was Judge Benitez and he used the text and tradition approach like the SCOTUS did in Bruan when coming to his decision a year ago .
So the Federal district judge found it unconstitutional using the same standard of review as the SCOTUS just did and the 3 judge panel at the 9th circuit also found it unconstitutional . I believe it then was either excepted en-banc or was appealed to be heard en-banc when they placed it on hold awaiting the outcome of the Bruan case being heard at the SCOTUS at the time .
My question is . since it had already been ruled on at the 9th by a 3 judge panel why does it go all the way back to the district judge ? On the whole I don't care really because judge Benitez's ruling was validated in the recent Bruan case so I suspect the outcome will not be any different . I just don't get why it goes all the way back down . The only reason I can think of is that the state did not make arguments based on text and tradition but rather the now extinct 2 step process .
Also seems likely Banetiz will order a preliminary injunction against the state on enforcing the AW ban which the 9th will over rule but still , I bet the judge does it anyway .
Last edited: