Mods, if this should be in the mega-thread, I'm sorry and merge it there.
Here is the conclusion of the cross petition for cert filed on behalf of the people excluded from the initial case (Parker and the rest).
Why did the Court not address this cross petition? It seems to me it would not have muddied up the issues in the question they have decided to address. Parker and the others are still people who are unaffiliated with any state militia and who wish to have operational guns in their homes for private use.
As they noted, granting the cross petition and resolving the conflict the DC Circuit has on the issue of standing is a something with widespread and significant impact, far beyond just gun issues. Perhaps they (SCOTUS) are concerned that the resulting avalanche of pre-enforcement challenges to federal laws would bury the federal courts. I can think of other answers, but they're kind of cynical. What do you think?
Here is the conclusion of the cross petition for cert filed on behalf of the people excluded from the initial case (Parker and the rest).
In demanding individualized threats of prosecution, a pre-enforcement challenge is virtually always too early, since even the government’s open-court vow to prosecute a plaintiff is apparently too generalized a threat. But if a threat is not sufficiently particularized until it rises to the level of actual arrest and prosecution, the putative plaintiff can only be a criminal defendant, owing to Younger abstention. In that respect, a post-enforcement civil challenge is always too late.
The court of appeals’ standing error is particularly troubling because it represents the law of the circuit that has direct jurisdiction over the seat of federal government. The impact of this errant doctrine is thus widespread and significant because it substantially curtails the people’s right to access the federal courts to obtain judicial review of governmental conduct – not only by the District of Columbia, as in this case, but by the federal government as well. Restoring a pre-enforcement right of access to federal courts, regardless of the Court’s decision on the merits of Respondents’ claims, is essential.
********* CONCLUSION **********
Cross-Petitioners respectfully request that the Court take this opportunity to clarify that pre-enforcement challenges under the United States Constitution may be heard in the nation’s capital without demonstration of a personalized prosecutorial threat.
Respectfully Submitted,
ALAN GURA*
ROBERT A. LEVY
CLARK M. NEILY III
Attorneys for Cross-Petitioners
Why did the Court not address this cross petition? It seems to me it would not have muddied up the issues in the question they have decided to address. Parker and the others are still people who are unaffiliated with any state militia and who wish to have operational guns in their homes for private use.
As they noted, granting the cross petition and resolving the conflict the DC Circuit has on the issue of standing is a something with widespread and significant impact, far beyond just gun issues. Perhaps they (SCOTUS) are concerned that the resulting avalanche of pre-enforcement challenges to federal laws would bury the federal courts. I can think of other answers, but they're kind of cynical. What do you think?
Last edited: