A couple of days ago, the Supreme Court declined cert
Comments
The fact it involved a burden on the right to own a gun in the home makes it a particularly inviting case to take but the first two comments suggest to me a good reason not to take the case. I do think they are due to take case, since there really does seem to be some sort of split in the circuits as to the proper standard of review and so forth.
But, this case very well might not be an apt one. I do think they might be avoiding taking a case given the sensitivity of the question. I’m unsure if the SF case is intended to test Heller, but the abortion question is another case where they seem to have be loathe to take up cases — after over twenty years of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, only two (on the same basic issue) got full examination.
Posted by: Joe | Jun 12, 2015 11:15:19 AM
I find it interesting that the San Francisco ordinance in question seems to be intended to pick away at Heller in the same fashion that recent abortion restrictions are intended to pick away at Roe v Wade. Perhaps Scalia and Thomas are somewhat irked at getting a taste of their own medicine.
Posted by: MGould | Jun 11, 2015 10:03:19 PM
I think it much more likely that the denial of Cert. was related to the procedural posture of the case. The Ninth Circuit decision merely refused to reverse the denial of a preliminary injunction, sending the case back to the District Court for a trial on the merits. The Petitioners will have another crack at the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court after a full record is developed and the District Court renders a final decision on the merits. While one might argue about what a full factual record might add to this particular case, it is very rare for the Supreme Court to intervene in any case at a preliminary stage of the proceedings, preferring to wait for a case with a fully developed record and a final determination by the lower courts.
Posted by: Daniel Artz | Jun 11, 2015 9:04:46 PM
I found the statement entirely baffling. The Court regularly denies splitless decisions involving alleged violations of other constitutional rights. Hell, it regularly denies decisions involving splits concerning the scope of constitutional rights. It seemed to me that Thomas is the one who wants some sort of special rule for Second Amendment cases.
Posted by: baffled | Jun 10, 2015 6:50:34 PM