SCOTUS Cert Filed: SAF and Gura: Lane v. Holder

As you may recall, at the District Court, the Judge dismissed the claims on grounds of standing (the lack of).

Today, the 4th Circuit, in a 12 page decision, affirmed the lower courts decision that the plaintiffs were not burdened directly by the law in question, but by third parties (the associated FFL's, who obey the law).
 

Attachments

Another perfect example of why my great-grandfather (the law professor) always maintained "There is no justice in the courts."

Talk about a weasel-word decision. So if the plaintiff's "injury" is due to third parties rather than to the law, he should be able to sue those third parties for redress, agreed? And, if he were to sue the FFL to obtain redress for his injury, I have no doubt that the FFL would be exonerated because "He's only following the law."

Catch-22.
 
Do I understand correctly that since it was mooted, it really doesn't create precedent or even prevent taking a future run at the same issues on a different set of facts. Except for the unfortunate loss of hours, no harm, no foul, right?
 
UPDATE!

Gura has filed for a rehearing/en banc yesterday.

His arguments are sound and should be persuasive, but.... This will be an uphill battle, as the CA4 seldom grants en banc hearings and you can guarantee that the panel will deny a rehearing (they were all against Gura).
 

Attachments

"Had the federal government prohibited bookstores from selling books to out-of-state resi- dents, no court would hold that impacted readers lack standing to challenge such a law under the First Amendment. Barring access to the national market for books would directly inflict an injury-in-fact upon consumers. Federal courts are empowered to fully redress that injury. None of this is particularly difficult or controversial.

"But substituting “handguns” for “books,” and “Second” for “First” Amendment, sometimes yields different results. The lower court held that criminal prohibitions of retail handgun sales do not directly impact frustrated consumers where the prohibitions are directed at sellers. The sellers’ compliance with the law in refusing to complete a prohibited transation, and the prohibition’s impact on the market, are, as far as the lower court is concerned, merely the intervening voluntary decisions of third parties."​

So starts the introduction of a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court in Lane v. Holder, filed pn May 28th, 2013. SCOTUS Docket 12-1401, A response is due on July 1st.

The petition is asking to reverse the issue of standing, affirmed by the CA4, on purely consumer standing to challenge federal regulation. It is a good petition, and lays out why the district and the CA4 were wrong. But at this point, I won't hold my breath in wondering if the Court will grant cert.
 

Attachments

Another update.

  • 05-28-2013 - Petition for Certiorari is filed. Case #12-1401.
  • 06-14-2013 - Waiver of right of respondent District of Columbia to respond filed.
  • 06-26-2013 - Brief amicus curiae of Community Association for Firearms Education filed.
  • 06-28-2013 - Order extending time to file response to petition to and including July 31, 2013.
  • 07-01-2013 - Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union filed.
Click to expand...

I have a question for our attorneys:

DC filed a waiver to respond to the petition, no response from the court seeking a response, yet an order was issued that extended the time for response. Nothing is listed in the orders denoting this.

What just happened? Is this to be considered a sua sponte request from the Court for a response?​
 
Al Norris said:
What just happened? Is this to be considered a sua sponte request from the Court for a response?
Click to expand...
I can't get to the Order extending time, but I think that's a pretty likely scenario. If the Court didn't want a response, it wouldn't issue an order extending time for one.
 
I agree with Spats. It's probably difficult for most folks to understand but states often do not file a response unless ordered to do so by the Supreme Court. MANY petitions for cert are weeded out by staff review of the petition without a response.
 
Generally, if there is no response to the petition, the Court will in almost all the cases, deny cert.

This is where I had a problem.

In all the cases that I've watched, shortly after the filing of the waiver to respond, there is always an order "inviting" a response by a particular date. My understanding of this is that one (or perhaps, more) of the Justices is slightly interested. Inviting a response does not indicate that cert will be granted. It merely moves you out of the immediate path for a denial (which can still come later).

In this instance, an order was not issued. The docket simply extends the time for a response. Searching the various orders of the court, turns up nothing that pertains to this case.

My thinking is that this is one of the clerks doing the "inviting." Hence my improper use of the term, sua sponte.
 
It's only an issue of standing in this case. So if we win we simply get a trip back to the lower court to actually address the real issue.
 
This case, as it is currently filed for cert, is only about standing. I fully expect the SCOTUS to Grant, Vacate and Remand (GVR). It is a simple (and wholly correct) solution.
 
The last conference for the month of Oct. was the 18th. In the orders for last Mon., Lane was not listed. We can safely assume that Lane is still alive. For now.

Next conference date is Fri. Nov. 1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top