Proper Cause Unconstitutional!

Absolutely. I look forward to some real howlers about what constitutes a state carrying its burden and plenty of middle finger legislation.
 
I should be interesting to watch the lower courts struggle with trying to make unconstitutional laws fit into the framework of NYSPRA v Bruen.

I wonder if they'll try to play the game of making favorable decisions that apply "only in my circuit" vs risking sending the cases back to SCOTUS, where the decision will affect the entire country.

How long do the lower courts have to reply to a case that has been granted, vacated and remanded back to them?
 
zukiphile said:
Absolutely. I look forward to some real howlers about what constitutes a state carrying its burden and plenty of middle finger legislation.
Click to expand...
I also expect a lot of middle finger rulings from the usual suspect circuit courts, claiming to be ruling in deference to NYSRPA while all the while thumbing their collective noses at it.

Sort of like the way they have been applying rational analysis or intermediate scrutiny in practice while proclaiming that they were using struct scrutiny.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
I also expect a lot of middle finger rulings from the usual suspect circuit courts, claiming to be ruling in deference to NYSRPA while all the while thumbing their collective noses at it.

Sort of like the way they have been applying rational analysis or intermediate scrutiny in practice while proclaiming that they were using struct scrutiny.
Click to expand...

The Court's current composition is different from that of the decade following Heller and McDonald during which a pro-2A majority apparently did not exist.

The four cases the Court just vacated and remanded provide a basis for prompt analysis of whether lower courts respond properly to the instruction in NYSRPA.
 
I thought I had a good idea of what vacated meant but I think I need clarification .

When the SCOTUS vacates a ruling what does that actually do/mean ?

In Duncan at the 9th circuit a 3 judge panel found the mag ban violated the 2nd . However as the 9th always does , they took that case en-banc and overturned the 3 judge ruling . So by vacating the en-banc panel , does that mean the 3 judge panel's ruling is back in effect until the 9th does something more ?

Asked maybe a better way . When a court vacates a ruling does that revert it back to the previous ruling or does it just put a freeze on things until the vacated panel does something to comply with the new guidance ?
 
To expand on Metal God's question for my own clarification:

Since SCOTUS granted certerathingIcan'tspell, and then tossed it back to lower courts, isn't that in effect saying: "You got it wrong, get it right or we will overrule you"?
 
Sorry folks, I'm getting confused here....

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to ...
Click to expand...

Not certain exactly what this means.
What I'm getting from this is that the writ of cert is granted, so that means they will hear the case...

But, they vacated the judgement of the lower court, which means its gone, as if it never was, right???

And the sent the case back to the lower court for another judgement, on which they will rule, once the lower court supplies it??
( I would assume if they find the new judgement from the lower court acceptable, they will approve, and if they don't they will overrule it?)

Is that about right, or am I off base here...???
 
[The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.] - the Supreme Court agreed to review the cases, or in this instance has already reviewed the four cases enough to ...
[The judgment is vacated,] - decide to void the judgements of the lower courts in the four cases, and ...
[and the case is remanded to ...] - return the cases to the lower courts to render new judgements considering the instructions in NYSRPA v. Bruen.

Each lower court will reach a judgement using the new approach from NYSRPA v. Bruen.
If the losing party in a case is satisfied with the lower court's new judgement, the case stops there.
If the losing party is not satisfied with the new judgement, they can ask the Supreme Court to review the case.
 
ghbucky said:
To expand on Metal God's question for my own clarification:

Since SCOTUS granted certerathingIcan'tspell, and then tossed it back to lower courts, isn't that in effect saying: "You got it wrong, get it right or we will overrule you"?
Click to expand...
Certiorari is the word you're looking for. That said, you've described SCOTUS' actions in language very similar to what I've used. Basically, it said, "These are wrong. Here's your new rule. Try again."

Now, with respect to vacating the appellate court rulings, .... What that means, to use language I've seen in some rulings, is that the appellate court rulings are 'held for naught.' In other words, it's like they never happened. An example not pulled from any of the cases at bar: Let's say a case went to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (a federal court), and that court struck a law as unconstitutional, and then went to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Let's further say that the 9th Circuit reversed, holding it constitutional, and was appealed to SCOTUS. If SCOTS then grants cert, and vacates the judgment of the 9th, then the case goes back to the 9th, but the holding of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CA goes back into effect, to include any stays in effect when it went up on appeal the first time.

Now, let's not all jump for joy just yet. There are several possible procedural paths a case could take. Some examples that build on the one in the preceding paragraph: (1) The 9th Circuit could reach the same decision as before (constitutionality), but try to do so in a way that complies with Bruen. (2) The 9th Circuit could decide that it lacked an adequate historical record and send it back for development of the historical record. or (3) The 9th could affirm the holding of the U.S. District Court.

The question then becomes whether we want to win or lose at the 9th. This may seem like a silly question, but consider this: (a) if we win at he 9th, the state could decide not to appeal, and the decision is only binding in the 9th Circuit, but possibly persuasive in other circuits; (b) if we lose at the 9th, our side gets the option of appeal and if we then go on to win at SCOTUS, we get a decision that is binding law on all of the circuits.

Let me also add that we may be in for what I think of as the "fermentation period," like we had after Heller and MacDonald. It is entirely possible that SCOTUS will let cases "ferment" in the circuits, watching to see what they come up with and waiting until we've got enough conflict between appellate court decisions to require a SCOTUS ruling to harmonize them.
 
44 AMP said:
Sorry folks, I'm getting confused here....



Not certain exactly what this means.
What I'm getting from this is that the writ of cert is granted, so that means they will hear the case...

But, they vacated the judgement of the lower court, which means its gone, as if it never was, right???

And the sent the case back to the lower court for another judgement, on which they will rule, once the lower court supplies it??
( I would assume if they find the new judgement from the lower court acceptable, they will approve, and if they don't they will overrule it?)

Is that about right, or am I off base here...???
Click to expand...
Nothing to be sorry for. You've obviously been paying attention, and pretty much nailed it.
 
Following the SCOTUS ruling in NYSRPA, the governor of Maryland has instructed the state police to stop enforcing the “good and substantial reason” provision in Maryland's licensing law.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...n-law-enforcement-after-supreme-court-ruling/

What is perhaps of note is that (so far, at least) Maryland has NOT made any statements about how dangerous and misguided the Supreme Court decision is, nor has Maryland (so far) made noises about enacting a bunch of new restrictions designed expressly to frustrate the clear intent of the SCOTUS decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top