The Supreme Court upholds a gun control law intended to protect domestic violence victims
The Supreme Court upholds a gun control law intended to protect domestic violence victims
The Supreme Court has upheld a federal gun control law that’s intended to protect domestic violence victims.
You're viewing a single thread.
The SCOTUS Blog calendar is showing only one more day for opinions, next Wednesday.
Vegas odds say that will change
Why might that be? I ask as someone who doesn’t follow the court until it crosses my eyeline, as with this article.
Well, the bulk of announcements leaves the following fifteen cases:
November - Jarkesy. This is the SEC case with three different questions that go to the heart of whether the SEC, or any administrative enforcement apparatus, is allowed to even exist - Harrington. Bankruptcy case asking whether bankruptcy courts can extinguish entirely third-party claims (a non-debtor suing another non-debtor) as part of the Chapter 11 plan and discharge
January - Relentless, and Loper Bright. Another attempt to gut or fully override Chevron. (Chevron is the case that says that when an administrative agency such as the EPA, which really means their experts, makes a determination within that agency's authority, the courts should start from a position of deferring to that finding. Because, you know, judges aren't scientists, economists, &c., whereas the guys working for these agencies generally are).
February - Corner Post. Statute of limitations and accrual of claims under the APA. Pretty technical. - Ohio v. EPA. Another attempt to nuke the EPA from orbit - NetChoice. This is two joined cases, where Paxton and Florida are trying to force Facebook to not be allowed to block conservatives from spreading outright lies. (Basically, are Facebook and Twitter and their ilk "the public square" and not allowed to moderate)
March - Murthy. Related to NetChoice, except addressing whether the government is allowed to even very politely and diffidently ask that dangerously untrue content, like vaccine 5G injections or drinking horse paste or shoving bleach up your rectum, be removed from the algo. - San Carlos Apache Tribe. Addresses an edge case for the Indian Health Service's support of the various tribes.
April - Snyder. Does a bribery charge require that there be an explicit, written, signed in blood agreement to take specific actions in exchange for a specific payment to a politician or person. - Fischer. This is the J6 case asking whether "obstruction" includes things like "counting electoral votes", or is the crime of obstruction limited only to investigations and evidence. - Grants Pass v. Johnson. Does the enforcement, against the homeless, of general laws or regulations regarding camping on public property violate the 8th amendment cruelats and unusual punishment prohibition. - Moyle. The Idaho abortion case; does the federal EMTLA statute preempt Idaho's "YOU WILL DIE FOR YOUR RAPIST'S BABY, YOU W****" law - Trump v. US. Specifically, the Trump v. US Immunity case
That's a lot.
I wonder if the lack of decisions in some of these cases may betray a three-way ideological split on the court that makes it impossible to write a true majority opinion?
Something like Kagan, Sotomayor, and Brown Jackson off in one corner saying "actually we shouldn't burn it all down for no reason," Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barret in the other chanting "NO CHEVRON DEFERENCE! NO WOMEN'S RIGHTS! BURN IT DOWN, BURN IT DOWN, GIL-E-AD, GIL-E-AD!" while Roberts and Gorsuch are sitting in the middle asking both sides "won't one of you just sign on to this opinion that only burns it down a little bit? We'd like to go home to our nice comfy lives as wealthy white men who aren't affected by any of this, please."
I bet I can guess the outcome of Snyder based on the number of undisclosed gifts each justice has taken then conveniently remembered when it gets reported.