Category: Courts

Glock wins (and Biden loses) in major liability suit

God didn’t deliver for President Joe Biden, who recently begged “the Lord” to help him erase the congressionally approved immunity that gun-makers have from lawsuits.

In a little-noticed decision with a major impact on the firearms industry, a federal judge in Arizona has ruled in favor of pistol manufacturer Glock and dismissed a suit brought by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence on behalf of a man who was accidentally shot and paralyzed.

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Brnovich upheld liability immunity granted in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed in 2005 to block gun-makers from a potential wave of industry-killing lawsuits.

Brnovich, nominated by former President Donald Trump and the wife of Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, dismissed multiple claims in the suit that the act’s protections were illegal, writing, “The statute is constitutional.”

While she made her decision in mid-March, it is just now winning attention as Biden and top congressional Democrats begin a campaign to impose new gun control restrictions and end liability immunity for gun-makers.

“The dismissal of this case is welcome news and demonstrates the importance of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” said Mark Oliva, the spokesman for the industry trade group National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Continue reading “”

All Indianapolis ‘red flag’ cases must come before judge after FedEx shooting

A judge this week issued new guidance requiring all “red flag” cases filed by Indianapolis police to be brought before her after a prosecutor was criticized for not pursuing a measure that could have prevented the suspect in the recent FedEx mass shooting from obtaining a weapon.

The Associated Press reports that Judge Amy Jones, who oversees red flag cases in Marion County, issued the new guidance this week with Indianapolis police now having 48 hours to submit their filings, after which two judges will decide in two weeks whether to hold a hearing.

In April, Brandon Scott Hole, a 19-year-old former FedEx employee, allegedly shot and killed eight people at a facility in Indianapolis. It was reported shortly after the shooting that Hole had used two assault rifles he had legally purchased.

Last week, Rick Snyder, president of the Indianapolis Fraternal Order of Police, criticized Marion County Prosecutor Ryan Mears, who he claimed had “failed to do his part” by not bringing Hole to court.

“Unfortunately, the lack of action by the Marion County prosecutor prevented a court hearing, which could have … prohibited the suspect from owning … any other firearms,” Snyder said. “Why didn’t the prosecutor seek the hearing that the statute requires? Why didn’t the prosecutor use all the legal tools available? Why didn’t the prosecutor try?”

Under Indiana’s red flag law, police may confiscate guns from a person deemed dangerous to themselves and others, the AP notes. Prosecutors can then request that a court ban that person from buying other firearms.

The FBI stated in April that it had removed a shotgun from Hole’s bedroom in 2020 after his mother warned authorities that he may attempt to commit “suicide by cop.”

Indianapolis police have filed 45 red flag referrals to the prosecutor’s office this year, the AP reports. All are awaiting rulings.

Federal judge: The CDC has no authority to create an eviction moratorium

A federal judge in Washington, DC has determined that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had no authority to implement a nationwide eviction moratorium. The full 20-page decision was posted here by CNN. But the conclusion is simply that the CDC shouldn’t have done this.

The Court recognizes that the COVID-19 pandemic is a serious public health crisis that has presented unprecedented challenges for public health officials and the nation as a whole. The pandemic has triggered difficult policy decisions that have had enormous real-world consequences. The nationwide eviction moratorium is one such decision.

It is the role of the political branches, and not the courts, to assess the merits of policy measures designed to combat the spread of disease, even during a global pandemic. The question for the Court is a narrow one: Does the Public Health Service Act grant the CDC the legal authority to impose a nationwide eviction moratorium? It does not.

The first eviction moratorium was an act of Congress passed early last year which wasn’t renewed. President Trump then issued an executive order last August asking the HHS Secretary and the CDC to consider whether or not they could issue an eviction moratorium to fill the gap.

In September the CDC issued a moratorium that was set to expire at the end of 2020. Because the CDC’s authority is limited to stopping the spread of the disease, it argued that the moratorium would prevent the spread of COVID by preventing the relocation of people (those who would have been evicted). The CDC moratorium applied to all rental properties nationwide but only to renters expecting to earn less than $99,000 over the course of 2020 (and meeting some other requirements).

Before the moratorium expired at the end of last year, Congress voted to extend it one month through the end of January 2021. Then before that extension expired the CDC extended it through March. Finally, it was extended again through June 30.

Today’s order wasn’t the first one to conclude the CDC had exceeded its authority. Back in March a judge in Ohio came to the same conclusion:

U.S. District Judge J. Philip Calabrese, who was nominated to the court by former President Donald Trump, sided with a group of property owners who had argued in October that the CDC lacked the power to ban them from evicting their tenants…

“This decision makes clear that federal agencies can’t exercise power Congress has not given them,” Steve Simpson, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented the landlords, said in a statement. “Now our clients no longer have to provide housing for free.”

And back in February, another judge in Texas said the same:

A federal judge in Texas has ruled that the national ban on evictions that’s been in place since September is unconstitutional.

“Although the Covid-19 pandemic persists, so does the Constitution,” U.S. District Judge John Barker wrote Thursday evening, siding with a group of property managers who argued that the ban exceeds the power of the federal government.

It’s not clear what will happen now because DOJ will likely appeal this latest ruling which means it may not be allowed to take effect. But it seems the writing is on the wall and sooner or later this is probably going to end with a ruling that more or less concludes the CDC never should have done this in the first place.

Chauvin’s Attorney Files for New Trial, Alleging Jury Misconduct

Derek Chauvin’s legal team has just filed for a new trial in his case. Chauvin was convicted on April 20 of three counts in the death of George Floyd – second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter.

His attorney, Eric Nelson, is alleging multiple grounds for the new trial, including jury misconduct.

Continue reading “”

Arizona: Senate Concurs On Frivolous Lawsuit Prevention Bill

[Monday] the Arizona Senate concurred with the House’s amendments to Senate Bill 1382, to protect Second Amendment rights from frivolous lawsuits and to ensure that access to the Second Amendment remains protected during emergencies. It now goes to Governor Doug Ducey for his signature.

Senate Bill 1382 protects firearm dealers, manufacturers, distributors, etc., from frivolous lawsuits for the criminal or unlawful use of their product. While federal law currently has this protection, as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), President Biden has promised to repeal the PLCAA as a main part of his assault on the Second Amendment. Prior to Congress passing PLCAA in 2005, 34 states passed similar laws on their own. With this measure, Arizona can add an additional layer of protection to prevent anti-gun extremists from attempting to bankrupt law-abiding businesses by suing them for the third party, criminal misuse of their legal products.

Additionally, SB 1382 still retains language from the original version that designates firearm and ammunition retailers as essential businesses. This ensures that anti-gun officials and bureaucrats cannot unjustly target them, to shut them down during states of emergencies.

 

Missourians need to remember that Mr. McCloskey is an early and continued supporter of the Marxist based BLM organization. While he and his wife deserves all due process and rights just like any other person accused of a crime, he’s likely no friend of RKBA, just another who thinks rights are situational to politics.

McCloskeys Face Fall Trial On Gun Charges

Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the couple who became famous (or notorious, depending on your point of view) for displaying firearms outside of their St. Louis mansion as hundreds of rowdy demonstrators tromped through their private neighborhood on their way to protest outside the home of Mayor Lyda Krewson last summer, now have a date with the court system.

Circuit Judge David Mason has tentatively scheduled an early November trial for the pair, who face charges of unlawful use of a weapon and tampering with evidence. Mason denied a request by the McCloskey’s attorney to send the case back to a grand jury because of the political bias demonstrated by St. Louis City Attorney Kim Gardner, who was removed from prosecuting the case after she used the arrests in fundraising emails during her re-election campaign.

Demonstrators were marching to the home of then-Mayor Lyda Krewson on June 28, amid nationwide protests after police killed George Floyd in Minneapolis. The protesters ventured onto a private street that includes the McCloskey mansion. The couple, both of them attorneys in their early 60s, said they felt threatened after protesters broke down an iron gate and ignored a “No Trespassing” sign. Protest leaders denied damaging the gate and said the march was peaceful.

Mark McCloskey came out of his home with an AR-15-style rifle and Patricia McCloskey emerged with a semiautomatic handgun. Cellphone video captured the confrontation.

Gardner said the display of guns risked bloodshed. A police probable cause statement said protesters feared “being injured due to Patricia McCloskey’s finger being on the trigger, coupled with her excited demeanor.”

Schwartz’s attempt to send the case back to the grand jury to reconsider the charges was a long shot, but the trial itself isn’t going to amount to much either. Gov. Mike Parson has already vowed to pardon the couple if they’re convicted, and the Attorney General Eric Schmitt has also tried to tried to intervene in the case, arguing that the charges should be dismissed outright.

There’s virtually no chance of the McCloskeys ending up with a criminal record, in other words. But it makes for good political theater, and ironically, may even be a boon to Mark McCloskey’s political career. The trial lawyer says he’s considering running for Senate in Missouri next year, now that incumbent Republican Roy Blunt has announced his retirement.

Continue reading “”

Skip the first 2 minutes if you don’t want to watch the commercial message.

2A Incrementalism vs All or Nothing: Restoring Second Amendment Rights

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- This correspondent has been involved in the struggle to restore Second Amendment rights for more than 50 years. For much of that period, many of those who wanted the Second Amendment to be honored in the United States asked a simple question:

Why doesn’t the NRA[or any other pro 2A group] bring a case to the Supreme Court?

  • The assumption was the Supreme Court would rule in favor of the clear “shall not be infringed” words of the Second Amendment, and all those unconstitutional infringements would go away.
  • The assumption was Supreme Court justices were honorable men and women who would do their job to uphold the Constitution.

The assumption was wrong.

So our example group, the NRA, would not bring a case, because the courts had made clear they would not enforce the Constitution. The courts routinely chipped away at Constitutional checks and balances, including the Second Amendment, for decades after the revolution in the courts brought about by Progressives.

The Heller case was not brought by the NRA. It was brought by Robert A. Levy of the Cato Institute, a Libertarian think-tank. They believed the time was finally ripe for a case.

Let me be clear: The policies promoted by “Progressives” were and still are actually regressive. They worked to return us to a period where the government has unlimited power, and a small, powerful, wealthy group rules over everyone else. Still, they call themselves “Progressives”. In a way, it is fitting, as much of their policy is based on the ability to deceive.

The Progressive revolution in the courts was greatly accelerated by the Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) administration. The revolution in the courts was underway in 1932, but the FDR administration made the courts a center of Progressive power. Progressives have been a majority on the Supreme Court for decades. Progressive ideology holds the Constitution has no fixed meaning.

Progressives hold that limitations on government power are bad policy.  Progressive ideology holds the ruling elite must shape public opinion to what Progressives want public policy to be.

President Reagan was able to place Justice Scalia, an originalist, to the Supreme Court in 1986, and wishy-washy Kennedy in 1988. President G.W. Bush appointed the stalwart Thomas in 1991. Chief Justice Roberts, who claims to be an originalist, was appointed in 2005.  Justice Alito, an originalist, was appointed in 2006. Those five were just enough to overturn the ban on the ownership of handguns in the District of Columbia in D.C. vs Heller in 2008.  The decision was severely restricted by the insistence of including limitations on the Second Amendment, to obtain the vote of Justice Kennedy, as engineered by Justice Stevens.

Continue reading “”

SCOTUS Agrees To Hear A Carry Case – What Are The Possible Outcomes?

The Effect Could Go Well Beyond The Right To Carry
Why Did SCOTUS Take This Case?

There are several reasons why the justices voted to hear this case:

First, and most significant, there is a conflict between the courts of appeal on the issue of the right to carry concealed outside the home.  This results in the right to carry concealed being constitutionally protected in Illinois and Washington DC, but not in the states of New York and California.  Conflicts like this are the most compelling reason for the Supreme Court to accept an appeal.

Second, lower courts have been ignoring the clear guidance given to them in Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010).  Hearing and deciding this case gives SCOTUS an opportunity to give further direction to the lower courts that must, of necessity, decide most cases.

Third, several justices have either voted to hear 2nd Amendment cases in recent years, or stated that the court must hear one soon, to include Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.  All of these justices are known to support a personal rights view of the 2nd Amendment.  It takes only four votes to hear a case – but five to win.  With Amy Coney Barrett, there appears to be five solid votes favoring that all important personal rights view that may very well decide this case.  Chief Justice Roberts is also a likely vote for the right to carry, given his votes in Heller and McDonald – although he has become more of a wildcard in recent years.  The real wildcard is Justice Kagan – who took up shooting and hunting after joining the court and becoming close to Justice Scalia (they did a lot of shooting and hunting together before his death).  She is probably a vote against the right to carry – but could surprise us all.

What Are The Possible Outcomes?  What would the impact of each one be?

Continue reading “”

Federal Judge Allows FPC Lawsuit Against California Handgun Roster Ban to Move Forward

SAN DIEGO, CA (April 27, 2021) — Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that Southern District of California Federal District Court Judge Dana M. Sabraw denied in part California’s motion to dismiss in FPC’s challenge to the handgun “Roster” ban laws, Renna v. Bonta. The order can be viewed at FPCLegal.org

After the case was filed in November of 2020, the State of California defendants moved to dismiss the case. Following briefing on the motion, the Court ruled that some parts of the case could proceed. The Court began by determining whether the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Pena v. Lindley barred the claims made in the lawsuit, and found that “[t]o the extent Plaintiffs challenge those provisions [of the handgun roster] as unconstitutional here, their arguments are foreclosed by Pena and therefore rejected.” This result was expected, and those claims will be addressed on appeal.

The Court denied the State’s motion as to the new changes to the handgun “Roster” laws enacted last year, allowing those claims to proceed by finding that “Pena did not address the issue of the removal of handguns from the roster, and the enactment of AB 2847 postdates Pena.” The court also determined that the plaintiffs had standing to bring the lawsuit. Citing FPC’s federal lawsuit against California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” the Court determined that the “Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged facts to establish standing and ripeness.”

In finding that the plaintiffs sufficiently allege that California’s Unsafe Handgun Act violates the Second Amendment, the Court noted that it “is not persuaded there is a ‘reasonable fit’ between the state’s asserted objective and the [AB 2847’s] three-for-one provision,” and that “Defendants offer no justification for why the statute requires the removal of three handguns for each new handgun added, instead of, for instance, a proportional one-to-one.”

“We are gratified that the Court has allowed the case to proceed to its ultimate resolution and we look forward to moving this important lawsuit forward very soon,” said Adam Kraut, FPC’s Senior Director of Legal Operations. “Through this case, we seek to overturn the Ninth Circuit’s wrongly decided 3-judge panel opinion in Pena by a court competent to do so, vindicate the rights of our clients and all Californians, and strike down the unconstitutional handgun Roster.”

Don’t read too much into this. Washington State will almost undoubtedly request an en banc at the 9th Circus, and we all know how that usually ends up. Of course, how the state is actually able to stop internet distribution – of anything – is beyond me.

Ninth Circuit Panel Vacates State AGs’ Injunction Blocking Distribution of 3D Gun Files

 

Illinois Judge Says FOID Requirement Unconstitutional For Guns At Home

The state of Illinois is one of just a handful across the country that require a permit to possess a gun in the home and provides criminal penalties for those who are caught with a firearm, but that law took a hit on Tuesday when a Circuit Court judge ruled that the state’s Firearm Owner ID card is unconstitutional, at least when it comes to keeping arms in your residence.

The case of Illinois v. Vivian Claudine Brown been in the state court system for several years, now, and today’s decision is actually the second time that a judge has ruled Brown’s possession of a bolt-action rifle shouldn’t have been a crime, even though she didn’t possess a valid FOID card. Last year the Illinois State Supreme Court declared that the judge had unnecessarily ruled on the constitutionality of the FOID statute and sent the case back down to the Circuit Court for further review.

Well, that review has been made, and once again we have a declaration that the FOID requirement is a violation of the Second Amendment. In a thorough analysis of the state’s FOID law, Judge T. Scott Webb makes the astute observation that under Illinois law no one really has the right to keep and bear arms, even in their home. Instead, everyone is considered a prohibited person unless and until they fork over money to the state for a permission slip. Webb says that the entire process is “inverted,” adding:

The burden should be on the state to demonstrate that a citizen has committed an act thereby disqualifying them from being in the group of people that already possess a Second Amendment right. Instead, the opposite is true. A citizen in the state of Illinois is not born with a Second Amendment right. Nor does that right inure when a citizen turns 18 or 21 years of age. It is a facade. They only gain that right if they pay a $10 fee, complete the proper application, and submit a photograph.

Continue reading “”

Making Sense of the Limited Cert Grant in NYS Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett

Why did the Court rewrite the question presented in this Second Amendment case?

One week ago, I lamented about Heller‘s sad bar mitzvah. On April 26, the Court denied review in three Second Amendment cases concerning the rights of non-violent felons. And the Court had twice relisted NYS Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett. At the time, I assumed the Court had denied review, and Justice Thomas was writing yet another dissent from denial of certiorari.

Once again, the shadow docket threw a curveball. This morning the Court granted cert in the case. But the Court only granted review to a limited question presented:

Whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

As soon as I saw the grant, I started to scratch my head. Why did the Court rewrite the QP? Here is how Paul Clement framed the issue for the petitioners:

Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.

There are at least five major differences between Clement’s QP and the Court’s QP.

First, the Court’s QP focuses on the state’s decision to deny “concealed-carry licenses” to the petitioners. Clement’s QP challenged the law on its face, and as applied. Is the Court’s decision now limited to an as-applied challenge, rather than a facial challenge? Might the Court leave open the possibility that other may-issue regimes are unconstitutional? Are there some unique aspects of the New York law that would distinguish it from other may issue regimes? Is there the possibility the Court will need to remand for further explication of the regime? Is there some evidence that the state improperly denied licenses to these particular plaintiffs? Might there be some Due Process Clause argument? Then again, the QP references the Second Amendment, so a Due Process issue would not be squarely presented. I see this slippery change as a way for the Court to issue a very, very narrow decision that will leave the issue unsettled.

Continue reading “”

Court to take up major gun-rights case

Over a decade after it ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right to have a handgun in the home for self-defense, the Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide whether the Constitution also protects the right to carry a gun outside the home. The justices’ announcement that they will take up a challenge to a New York law that requires anyone who wants to carry a gun in the state to show a good reason for doing so sets the stage for a major ruling on gun rights in the court’s 2021-22 term.

The law at issue in the case, New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett, is similar to gun-control measures in other states. To receive an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm outside the home, a person must show “proper cause” – meaning a special need for self-protection. Two men challenged the law after New York rejected their concealed-carry applications, and they are backed by a gun-rights advocacy group. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld the law, prompting the challengers to appeal to the Supreme Court.

After considering the case at three conferences, the justices agreed to weigh in. They instructed the parties to brief a slightly narrower question than the challengers had asked them to decide, limiting the issue to whether the state’s denial of the individuals’ applications to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense violated the Second Amendment. But the case nonetheless has the potential to be a landmark ruling. It will be argued in the fall, with a decision expected sometime next year.

The announcement came just one day short of one year after the court’s ruling in a different challenge brought by the same gun-rights group. That case involved New York City’s ban on the transport of licensed handguns outside the city. Because the city had repealed the ban before the case reached the Supreme Court, a majority of the court agreed with the city that the challengers’ original claims were moot – that is, no longer a live controversy. In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that the case should return to the lower court, but he also indicated that he shared the concern – expressed by Justice Samuel Alito in his dissenting opinion – that the lower courts “may not be properly applying” the Supreme Court’s most recent gun-rights rulings, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. Therefore, Kavanaugh urged the court to “address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari” then pending before the justices, several of which involved the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense.

Shortly after issuing that decision, the court distributed for consideration at its May 1, 2020, conference 10 gun rights cases that they had put on hold while the New York City case was pending. The justices considered those cases at six consecutive conferences before finally denying review in all 10 of them in June.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the court’s decision not to take up at least one of the 10 cases. In an opinion that was joined in part by Kavanaugh, Thomas argued that the Supreme Court would likely grant review if a law required someone to show a good reason before exercising her right to free speech or to seek an abortion. However, Thomas continued, the Supreme Court had opted to “simply look[] the other way” when “faced with a petition challenging just such a restriction on citizens’ Second Amendment rights.”

There is no way to know why the justices turned down the petitions for review last year. Commentators speculated that some conservative justices may not have been confident that Chief Justice John Roberts would provide a fifth vote to expand gun rights. However, since then Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whose vote as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit suggests that she might take a broader approach to the Second Amendment.

Akayed Ullah: Times Square Subway Pipe Bomber Jailed for Life

A man who set off a pipe bomb during rush hour in a New York subway station has been sentenced to life in prison.

Akayed Ullah, 31, detonated the bomb in Times Square station, which is the busiest in New York City, on 11 December 2017.

He later claimed he had only wanted to kill himself and was not acting on behalf of the Islamic State (IS) group.

US Circuit Judge Richard Sullivan described the attack as a “truly barbaric and heinous crime”………..

 

Other say that path is to Civil War.

BLUF:
We’re left to ask: does America still have the option of reversing course, or, in its march toward some form of tyranny, has it already put the Rubicon in its rearview mirror?  

After all, how is a nation supposed to lawfully remedy the corrupt silence of a politicized Supreme Court from which there is no readily apparent peaceful means for appeal? 

Supreme Court’s failures are putting America on a path to tyranny.

Rarely do the generation experiencing the actual events and decisions that lead to their nation’s demise fully appreciate the enormity of their oversight until sometime after their culture’s destruction has been rendered incurable.  Largely, it is not due so much to their negligence as it is to most of them being too preoccupied with simply living and making a living.

Perhaps that would explain why, in just the first four months of 2021, the Supreme Court issued four decisions — or, perhaps better viewed as non-decisions — that should have caused all legitimately patriotic Americans to be alarmed and called to action…but did not seem to.

Only a few weeks ago, without offering any substantive explanation, the Court summarily refused to even look at — much less seriously consider — any of the evidence of the 2020 election irregularities offered by attorney Sidney Powell and others.  Evidently, the Supreme Court of the United States of America was not interested in doing what it could — and should — to let America know decisively whether or not its presidential election had been shamelessly stolen by those now in power.

Why would they not do this?

Continue reading “”

AOC backs court packing, says court shouldn’t overturn laws backed by thousands of advocates

Democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Thursday threw her weight behind expanding the Supreme Court.

“I do think we should be expanding the court,” she told reporters.

The New York Democrat, part of the progressive “Squad” collective on Capitol Hill, reasoned the justices overturning laws is part of the problem with the 6-3 conservative majority.

“The idea that nine people, that a nine-person court, can overturn laws that … hundreds and thousands of legislators, advocacy and policymakers drew consensus on … we have to … just ask ourselves, I think as a country, how much does that current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does,” she said.

Sen. Edward Markey, Massachusetts Democrat, led the charge Thursday to unveil a bill to add four seats to the bench, declaring that the Supreme Court is broken and needs to be fixed.

“The United States Supreme Court is broken. It is out of balance and it needs to be fixed,” Mr. Markey said on the steps of the Supreme Court. “Too many Americans have lost faith in the court as a neutral arbiter.”

The Massachusetts senator blamed former President Trump and Senate Republicans for holding a vacancy open in 2016 for Mr. Trump to fill it by appointing Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

He said the Republicans also “stole” the seat left vacant by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg when Mr. Trump appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett days before the November election instead of allowing President Biden to fill the seat.

The Judiciary Act of 2021 expands the high court from nine justices to 13. The Democratic lawmakers reasoned 13 was a proper number because there are 13 federal circuit courts, allowing for a single justice to oversee appeals from each one.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said she hasn’t seen the actual legislation, stopping shy of endorsing it, but noted she supports the bottom line.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, said she would not be bringing the bill to the floor, instead waiting to see the suggestions of a commission created last week by Mr. Biden to study the Supreme Court suggests.

The Supreme Court has had nine justices since 1869.

BLUF:
I’m somewhat surprised that neither Folajtar or Flick were granted cert by the Court, and I can’t help but see it as a troubling sign that SCOTUS may be trying to bypass cases that involve the Second Amendment. I’m also surprised that Barrett herself didn’t any kind of written dissent from the decisions, especially given her forceful statements in Kanter v. Barr, and I’m not as optimistic as I was a couple of weeks ago that SCOTUS is going to step in and grant cert in any of the upcoming carry cases either.

SCOTUS Rejects Two Gun Cases, Holds On To Another

Amidst a push by the Left to pack the Supreme Court full of anti-gun justices appointed by President Joe Biden and a number of high-profile shootings around the country, SCOTUS once again sidestepped an important case dealing with the right to carry on Monday morning, while also rejecting two cases involving non-violent felons who were hoping to have their rights restored.

The Court has been considering whether or not to grant cert in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett for several weeks now, and a good chunk of the Second Amendment community has become increasingly skeptical that the Court will accept any case dealing with the right to keep and bear arms, even with the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the bench.

That skepticism is likely to increase thanks to other actions the Court took on Monday, denying cert in cases called Folajtar v. Garland and Flick v. Garland. As the Cato Institute explained the Folajtar case:

Continue reading “”

⇓Not the Babylon Bee. ⇓