What is the Status of Peruta

Status
Not open for further replies.
So far (in anticipation of seating the new justice, I think), Peruta has been rescheduled three times:

Mar 8 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 24, 2017.
Mar 23 2017 Rescheduled.
Mar 27 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 31, 2017.
Mar 30 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 10 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2017.
Apr 12 2017 Rescheduled.​

Next dates for possible conferences are April 21 and April 28.

Check here: Docket for 16-894
 
speculates that the Justices were kicking the can down the curb until they had a full bench.
Click to expand...

Who gets to kick the can ? Does the chief justice him self decide that or is it the collective ?

Are they waiting for a full bench so all 9 can vote on cert ?

The tea leaves I've heard is that It's already been denied and they are giving the dissenting judge/s time to write there dissent ?
 
Non-attorney here. Please educate me. What happens next, and when? And after that?
Click to expand...
When deciding on whether to grant review, the Supreme Court hears potentially meritorious cases in a non-public conference where they can vote to accept or deny review. In Peruta, that conference was rescheduled several times with the first actual conference held April 28th. As others have noted, the thought is that the other members of the Court wanted the 9th member aboard before deciding whether to accept review.

In the April 28th conference, the justices decided to "relist" it which simply means they want to talk about it some more in their May 11th conference. It is very difficult to interpret anything from this, other than they are still looking at it. The decision on whether to accept review may be made at the conference or again relisted. It is possible the case was relisted to allow Justice Gorsuch and his staff to get up to speed. He joins Justice Alito as the only justices who do not participate in the "cert pool." The other justices all pool their law clerks to rotate in reviewing certiorari requests, though I suspect that high profile/important cases may get extra attention.

Most decisions to deny review are summary in nature, meaning the court gives no explanation. Every so often, one or more justices who disagree and want to accept review will write a dissent and this will slow down the public announcement on the certiorari request.

Bottom line, nobody knows exactly when the decision to review the 9th Circuit decision will be made, or at least announced. If it's not relisted following the conference later today (the 11th), then a decision has probably been made.
 
Relisted again, so still alive. rumor has it that Kennedy may announce his retirement at the end of the term, which could result in this being continued to the fall calendar. This is one decision the court will hold until it has a full bench due to its importance. this is one they don't want a 4-4 tie.
 
I won't hope that a decision would bring on the gun rights utopia. You could easily see a decision that looks good but has ambiguous or poison pill language.

If they go negative, then we get the result that the NRA feared when you go to the court. It's still 4 to 4 with Kennedy being the pivot. I agree that having another progun justice would have been better than pushing this now.
 
Glenn said:
If they go negative, then we get the result that the NRA feared when you go to the court. It's still 4 to 4 with Kennedy being the pivot. I agree that having another progun justice would have been better than pushing this now.
Click to expand...

As it stands, right now, it is perfectly fine for a state (within the 9th Circuit) to make concealed carry as difficult as it wants, even to the point of banning the practice entirely, because concealed carry is not a right.

That part of the Peruta decision comports with every other Federal Circuit Court of Appeals with the outlying exception of the 7th Circuit.. So there would appear, on the surface, to be no real judicial disagreement on the federal level.

The problem with the En Banc decision of the 9th Circuit is that they, like the original panel, had the option to kick the case back to the District Court. Why? Because in the interim of the decision of the District Court and the original appeal to the 9th Circuit, the CA law on open carry had changed. Dramatically.

Such a change in law is almost always kicked back to the originating court to be litigated.

Here, the appeals panel decided the case as if that change had been fully litigated. The result was a decision that was well within the bounds of the second amendment and comported very well with the 7th Circuits decision in Moore.

This decision resulted in an En Banc panel being called. At this point, the State of CA (who had declined to be heard at the District Court, because the lawsuit did not affect any CA law) wished to become a party, because they rightly saw that their open carry law could be overturned. Rightly or wrongly, the 9th Circuit allowed the State to become a party to the case(s).

After everything was said and done, the En Banc decision said that concealed carry was not a right within the bounds of the second amendment. The decision did not touch on the issue of a right to carry in some form or manner, outside of the front door of your house. The court simply ignored that part of the question before it.

Yes, it technically leaves the door open for a future case in deciding if a citizen has a right to carry openly. Yet at the same time, because the 9th circuit failed to kick the case back to the District court, and the court ignored that portion of the case tied to some form of carry, it has pretty much signaled how it would decide such a future case.

The effect of that decision is that within the 9th Circuit (9 states and 2 territories), carry anywhere outside of your house may be banned and leaves the second amendment a virtual toothless right. You may "keep" your arms, but you may not "bear" them.

So we are left with the possibility that the SCOTUS will not grant cert, thereby leaving the decision of the 9th circuit intact. That will have the affect of emboldening the other circuits to modify future decisions to employ the same results.

Or, the SCOTUS may grant cert and we let the marbles fall where they may.

That scares a lot of folks, Glenn. But I want to know, once and for all, whether or not the highest Court in the land says I can not protect myself against lethal threats outside of my domicile. That is what this case is about.
 
We have to remember that although Gorsuch has replaced Scalia, nothing has really changed on the Court. Kennedy is still the swing vote, and may have expressed his unwillingness to extend 2nd Amendment rights outside of the home.

The fact that we have four solidly pro-2nd Amendment justices on the Court means that at least one of them is, indeed, "kicking the can down the road" until the Court again changes with another conservative/strict constructionist justice replacing Kennedy or one of the liberals.

Their continued relisting indicates to me that they want to take up the case, but are afraid they don't have the votes for the outcome they desire.
 
Al , that was a very good take on the case and is exactly how i understand it . I live in San Diego where the case originated . I was one of many that went down and applied for a CCW permit after the 9ths three judge panel ruled in are favor

44xk.jpg


After the en-banc panel ruling they quickly denied all applicants that were on that waiting list
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That scares a lot of folks, Glenn. But I want to know, once and for all, whether or not the highest Court in the land says I can not protect myself against lethal threats outside of my domicile. That is what this case is about.
Click to expand...

Well, knowing that the 2nd Amend. is toothless except for owning a ducky-wucky gun is useful, I guess. if SCOTUS supports state bans on carry and the state AWB, mag bans - then IMHO, the amendment has been rendered worthless for protecting pragmatic SD issues beyond Joe Biden's shotgun tactics.
 
Glenn said:
... then IMHO, the amendment has been rendered worthless for protecting pragmatic SD issues beyond Joe Biden's shotgun tactics.
Click to expand...

It would be a watershed moment. I can see many states pushing back on the federal government, in the form of legislation that further affirms the rights of its citizens, as stated in their own Constitutions.

Consider the following,
Before the Heller decision, there were 6 states that had no constitutional provisions to bear arms: California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York.1

Before the Heller decision, there were two states where the individual right to bear arms was not expressly characterized as individual, and their courts had not passed on the question: Hawaii, Virginia.1

Before the Heller decision, there were two states where the courts had treated the right as collective: Kansas, Massachusetts.1​
Even assuming that those ten states remained as they were after the Heller decision, that still leaves forty state constitutions, or 80%, that an adverse Supreme Court decision would affect.

In sum, there are a lot of different outcomes that the Justices will have to think on, before they decide to grant or not grant cert.

1Data taken from "State Constitutional Rights to Keep and Bear Arms", Eugene Volokh, Texas Review of Law and Politics, 2007.
 
The problem with state pushback is that Federal legislation could void all state laws. IIRC, Frank has pointed out that state laws offer little protection against a Federal law.

I also think it is quite important to break the hold that states like NY or CA have on their citizens. Those are major center of antigun activism and politicians. Rendering their restrictive laws null and void would be a major proactive step as compared to the current: Well, we are not Hillary - do nothing proactive strategy of the GOP.
 
Okay, so I'm really late to this discussion and I'm not a lawyer or even terribly good at understanding laws (I went to Boy's State in high school, but that really doesn't help).

I cannot find what the actual original case was (presumably Peruta vs. County of San Diego?) and can only find the appeal (from the 9th circuit on upwards). I understand that at this point the SCOTUS is deciding whether or not to actually hear this appeal and make a decision (today, actually).

Can someone help me out here? I think this has a big deal to do with the laws of the country (even though I'm in CO).

I also read some of your comments on the laws in NY and being a former resident, I can't more agree. The problem comes that many of the laws and taxes and legislation that occurs in NY is due to the little corner that juts into the sea. Whilst not all of the rest of NY is conservative/Republican/pro-gun, when the voting is broken up by county, the rest of the state is *usually* more red than blue. Which I'm sure you already know, but to make anything move in that state, it has to affect or appeal to the residents of NYC, or it doesn't happen. Over half the population is in those 5 boroughs and it makes it difficult to make anything happen because many of those citizens don't even know that Niagara Falls is in NY(well part of it at least). Or that NY isn't the capitol.

EDIT: Felt the need to clarify a statement that NYC holds greater than 50% of the total population; it doesn't. HOWEVER "Down state" as it's coloquially known, DOES (a look at the most populated counties in New York State add up to over 50% of the total populus.)
 
Last edited:
Go to youtube and search Edward Peruta v. County of San Diego . This will bring up the en-banc proceeding . Im on my phone and can't figure out how to link it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top