Applicants should not be deterred by today’s order
from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not,
within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its
stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal
Correct.This is getting a tad confusing, but if I'm reading it correctly, The District Court issued an injunction against sections of the NY law, and provided their reasoning for doing so.
Then, the 2nd Circuit placed a
"stay" on that injunction, which results in the law being in effect until litigation on the law is completed. And did not give their reasoning for doing so.
"Relief" was sought from the Supreme Court to set aside the 2nd Circuit's ruling and that request has been denied.
I write to express my concurrence in 44AMP's opinion... I'm sure there have been other times when a SCOTUS denial has a note appended to it like this, but I cannot recall having seen it, at the moment. Someone took the time to write this for Alito and Thomas, it and was done for a reason.My take on the linked information from the high court is that they aren't happy with the Circuit court ruling, because there is no explanation (and no supporing arguments) for that ruling, but are not "stepping in to overrule the circuit court decision at this time, and so have denied the request to vacate that ruling.
That being said, I think its important to consider the final portion of the linked text, which is.
Applicants should not be deterred by today’s order from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal
From what it looks like to me, SCOTUS is hoping (possibly requiring) the Second Circuit to take care of its own mess (by providing the basis for their ruling) to the high court's satisfaction, and if they don't, THEN SCOTUS could (and hopefully will) step in.
Again, this is all procedural crap inside the court system, about how to handle things while the legality of the NY law is being litigated.
Are people going to be harmed by allowing the NY law to be enforced before the legal challenges are resolved? I believe so. Can those people be "made whole" (compensated) for the harm? Possibly, in some cases, in others, possibly not. The District court that issued the initial injunction apparently believes that less harm would result from having the law's enforcement suspended until the legal challenges are resolved. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals apparently believes differently, but hasn't explained WHY to the satisfaction of either the people, or SCOTUS.
It APPEARS that SCOTUS expects that explanation and isn't going to step in and overrule the 2nd Circuit until they see that explanation and decide if they need to overrule 2nd Circuit, or not, based on the arguments and reasoning they expect that explanation to provide. And they specifically said that if that explanation isn't given "in a reasonable time" that application for relief from the 2nd Circuit's ruling could be applied for, again.
so, get your popcorn ready, and try and keep a lid on your frustration as this can of worms slowly empties....
I agree with 44AMP and Spats.
I believe that on occasion SCOTUS will give an errant court of appeal a chance to correct its decision, and it might do so if required to try to explain its decision.
Or if the Second Circuit's explanation is specious, it will give SCOTUS an opportunity to dismantle it and thus further clarify the rules.
I disagree. The politicians in New York do not know they will eventually lose. They are counting on the Second Circuit to cover their backs and, so far, the Second Circuit has done exactly that. And will continue to do so unless the SCOTUS steps in and rules decisively.ViperJon said:New York is going to be dragged into compliance kicking and screaming (and delaying) but eventually they will lose. They know it.
New York is going to be dragged into compliance kicking and screaming (and delaying) but eventually they will lose. They know it.
But, the state has been winning every case for over 100 years, with a little help occasionally from the 2nd circuit court.
I disagree. The politicians in New York do not know they will eventually lose. They are counting on the Second Circuit to cover their backs and, so far, the Second Circuit has done exactly that. And will continue to do so unless the SCOTUS steps in and rules decisively.
I appreciate your positive vibes. But, the state has been winning every case for over 100 years, with a little help occasionally from the 2nd circuit court.
You are just confirming that they don't know they will lose. They didn't lose with the blatantly unconstitutional SAFE Act they they passed in the middle of the night after the Sandy Hook school shooting. That case got as far as the 2nd Circuit, and the 2nd Circuit upheld the law. That case didn't make it to the Supreme Court because neither faction on the SCOTUS was certain of a win, so both sides preferred to dodge the issue and decline cert.natman said:I have no idea what altered reality NY politicians live in, but they know they are going to lose. They know that NYSRPA v Bruen specifically forbids what they are doing, but they plan on stalling as long as they can in the hope that the composition of the court changes.
Aguila Blanca said:It's an ugly game, but it is NOT a game the state knows they will lose.
Sometimes, though, they do know they will fail, and they proceed anyway because they want to convey an appearance of DOING SOMETHING.44 AMP said:To ask why the politicians do such things, its because they don't KNOW they will ultimately fail, (though the more practical ones might expect that, now) but because until/unless there is a ruling against what they did, they count is as a win.
Aguila Blanca said:Sometimes, though, they do know they will fail, and they proceed anyway because they want to convey an appearance of DOING SOMETHING.