Supreme Court Second Amendment Update 1-17-2025
In my last update, I wrote, “If a cert petition reaches its scheduled conference date without a justice requesting a response, then we know it was placed on the deadlist and never voted on. It was simply denied.” That remains true. Every Second Amendment cert petition that went into last Friday’s SCOTUS conference, where the respondents had either filed a waiver or did not file any response, was denied. In one case, the Feds asked for the cert petition to be granted, the lower court’s decision vacated, and the case remanded (GVR’d) back to the lower court for proceedings consistent with US v. Rahimi. With only one exception that I can recall when the Feds ask for a GVR, they get it.
I also wrote The “assault rifle” and “large capacity” magazine cert petitions were today relisted to this Friday’s SCOTUS conference of January 10th.” They survived that conference and were relisted to today’s conference. We won’t know until Tuesday whether they and the other petitions scheduled for today’s conference survived.
A response was requested for one of the petitions scheduled for today’s conference, but the Second Amendment was just one of three questions presented to the justices. I suspect that one of the other questions (most likely question 3) in Jarvis Parker, Petitioner v. Florida No. 24-6146 resulted in a response being requested.
In any event, when a justice requests a response after a waiver has been filed and the response hasn’t been filed before the petition goes to its scheduled conference, the petition survives that conference.
Last Friday’s SCOTUS conference resulted in 13 denials, 1 GVR, and two relists.
The petitions that were scheduled for today’s conference are:
Ocean State Tactical, LLC, dba Big Bear Hunting and Fishing Supply, et al, Petitioners v. Rhode Island, et al. No. 24-131 The questions presented are: 1. Whether a retrospective and confiscatory ban on the possession of ammunition feeding devices that are in common use violates the Second Amendment. 2. Whether a law dispossessing citizens without compensation of property that they lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the Takings Clause. Aug 02 2024 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. Response due November 5, 2024. Nov 05 2024 Brief of respondents Rhode Island, et al. in opposition filed. Nov 19 2024 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/6/2024. Dec 09 2024 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/13/2024. Dec 11 2024 Rescheduled. Jan 06 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2025. Jan 13 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2025. David Snope, et al., Petitioners v. Anthony G. Brown, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of Maryland, et al. No. 24-203 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Constitution permits the State of Maryland to ban semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in America. Aug 21 2024 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 12, 2024). Nov 12 2024 Brief of Anthony G. Brown, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Maryland, et al. in opposition submitted. Nov 26 2024 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/13/2024. Dec 11 2024 Rescheduled. Jan 06 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2025. Jan 13 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2025. Mark Allen Craig, II, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5786 I. QUESTION PRESENTED Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits firearm possession by anyone convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year,” violates the Second Amendment on its face. Oct 15 2024 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 18, 2024). Dec 18 2024 Memorandum of respondent United States filed. Feds say the case should be GVR'd or the petition denied. Jan 02 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2025. Jarvis Parker, Petitioner v. Florida No. 24-6146 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether, contrary to the Due Process and Jury Clauses, the trial court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence under a statute authorizing the enhancement based on nonjury fact-findings upon proof by a preponderance of the evidence? 2. Whether Petitioner was deprived of his right to bear arms, under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, where he was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon? 3. Whether Petitioner was derived of his right, under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, to a trial by a 12-person jury when the defendant is charged with a serious felony? Dec 09 2024 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 15, 2025). Dec 26 2024 Waiver. Jan 02 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2025. Jan 13 2025 Record Requested. Jan 13 2025 Response Requested. (Due February 12, 2025). Jan 14 2025 Electronic record received from the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
The petitions currently scheduled for next Friday’s conference (the last conference until February 21st) are:
Jesus Perez-Garcia and John Thomas Fencl, Petitioners v. United States No. 24-6203
QUESTION PRESENTED
Petitioners raised as-applied Second Amendment challenges to firearms-related conditions of pretrial release. After their cases mooted, but before this Court issued a decision in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), the Ninth Circuit published an opinion rejecting that challenge. Since Rahimi, this Court has granted at least 19 certiorari petitions raising diverse Second Amendment issues, vacated the opinions below, and remanded. The questions presented are:
(1) Whether this Court should grant this petition, vacate the Second Amendment opinion below, and remand with instructions to dismiss the case as moot.
(2) Whether courts have Article III jurisdiction to issue a reasoned judicial opinion after a case becomes moot, so long as they announce the case’s disposition before the case moots.
Dec 20 2024 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 27, 2025). Jan 07 2025 Waiver. Jan 09 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/24/2025. Jan 14 2025 Response Requested. (Due February 13, 2025).
B&L Productions, Inc., et al., Applicants v. Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, et al. No. 24-598
The questions presented are:
1. Whether the distinction between pure speech and commercial is obsolete, with the First Amendment protecting all lawful speech in the same manner and, if not, whether the current iteration of the “commercial speech doctrine” tolerates a categorical ban on any speech or expressive conduct constituting an acceptance in contract formation for lawful sales of lawful products.
2. Whether the Ninth Circuit’s decision directly conflicts with this Court’s decision in Bruen by applying a “meaningful constraint” test to a Second Amendment claim asserting a right to engage in lawful commerce in firearms and ammunition on public property.
3. Whether an allegation that a law is motivated by animus can support a claim under the Equal Protection Clause when the law results in the denial of access to public forums for disfavored groups advocating disfavored rights?
Nov 27 2024 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 2, 2025). Dec 09 2024 Waiver of right of respondent Summer Stephan, in her official capacity as District Attorney for the County of San Diego to respond filed. Dec 09 2024 Waiver of right of respondents Gavin Newsom, et al. to respond filed. Jan 02 2025 Amicus brief of National Rifle Association of America submitted. Jan 08 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/24/2025. Jan 16 2025 Response Requested. (Due February 18, 2025).
Gail Manney, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6197
Question Presented for Review
The question presented is whether the Second Amendment covers a federal firearm regulation. This Court has not yet clarified the Second Amendment’s coverage in the context of firearm regulations. Petitioner Gail Manney asserts that 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) regulates the purchase of firearms, a protected Second Amendment right, thus requiring full review under N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). The Ninth Circuit held otherwise by finding the criminal firearm regulation did not fall within the Second Amendment. Certiorari is therefore necessary to establish the breadth of the Second Amendment.
Dec 20 2024 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 27, 2025). Jan 07 2025 Waiver. Jan 09 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/24/2025.
Steven Eric Walker, Petitioner v. United States, et al. No. 24-6046
Questions Presented
1. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, (2008), this Court rejected the government’s belief that it has a plenary power over the individual’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Id at 598-602. The Court further recognized the prohibition of government power over the right “is general” and that “[n]o clause in the constitution” could give to either the state or federal government “a power to disarm the people” as the Second Amendment is “a restraint” on both. Id. at 607. Question: Does the unqualified constitutional prohibition established by the Second Amendment delegate to government a free-floating power to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear weapons for purposes of security, safety, and self-defense?
2. In NYPistol & Rifle Assc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 34 (2022), this Court held that the government must carry the burden of demonstrating whether the evidence supporting their gun control regulation is consistent with the principles underlying the Second Amendment, to overcome the presumption of protected conduct. Yet, there is not an established standard of proof. Question: Does the constitutional burden of proof require the government to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that their weapons regulations, are consistent with the principles underlying the Second Amendment?
Mar 26 2024 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 27, 2024). Dec 27 2024 Waiver. Jan 09 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/24/2025.
Roderick Wayne Bell, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6211
The question presented is:
Whether there is an obvious and irreconcilable clash between §922(g)(1) and the rights protected by the Second Amendment.
Dec 26 2024 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 29, 2025). Jan 07 2025 Waiver. Jan 09 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/24/2025.
More Second Amendment petitions might be scheduled for the conference on January 24th.