SAF v NJ (MULLER et al v. MAENZA et al)

[ryan_j 0]

Sorry if it's been asked before, but when will they let us know if they decide to take the case or not?

Monday most likely.

 

There is an outside chance we may know today. There is also an outside chance they could hold it for another conference.

[OchoBlue 3]

Found this interesting as to today's procedures .... From UScourts.gov

 

Why does today feel like your favorite team is in the NFC championship game, but you can't watch or even listen on the radio. Plus you won't know the score until Monday ?

 

Keep the faith!

-----------------------

 

When oral arguments are concluded, the Justices have to decide the case. They do so at what is known as the Justices' Conference. Two Conferences are held per week when Court is in session, on Wednesday and Friday afternoons. The Justices vote on cases heard on Mondays and Tuesdays of a given week at their Wednesday afternoon Conference. The Justices vote on cases heard on Wednesday at their Friday afternoon Conference. When Court is not in session, usually only a Friday Conference is held.

 

Before going into the Conference, the Justices frequently discuss the relevant cases with their law clerks, seeking to get different perspectives on the case. At the end of these sessions, sometimes the Justices have a fairly good idea of how they will vote in the case; other times, they are still uncommitted.

 

According to Supreme Court protocol, only the Justices are allowed in the Conference room at this time—no police, law clerks, secretaries, etc. The Chief Justice calls the session to order and, as a sign of the collegial nature of the institution, all the Justices shake hands. The first order of business, typically, is to discuss the week's petitions for certiorari, i.e., deciding which cases to accept or reject.

 

After the petitions for certiorari are dealt with, the Justices begin to discuss the cases that were heard since their last Conference. According to Supreme Court protocol, all Justices have an opportunity to state their views on the case and raise any questions or concerns they may have. Each Justice speaks without interruptions from the others. The Chief Justice makes the first statement, then each Justice speaks in descending order of seniority, ending with the most junior justice—the one who has served on the court for the fewest years.

 

When each Justice is finished speaking, the Chief Justice casts the first vote, and then each Justice in descending order of seniority does likewise until the most junior justice casts the last vote. After the votes have been tallied, the Chief Justice, or the most senior Justice in the majority if the Chief Justice is in the dissent, assigns a Justice in the majority to write the opinion of the Court. The most senior justice in the dissent can assign a dissenting Justice to write the dissenting opinion.

 

If a Justice agrees with the outcome of the case, but not the majority's rationale for it, that Justice may write a concurring opinion. Any Justice may write a separate dissenting opinion. When there is a tie vote, the decision of the lower Court stands. This can happen if, for some reason, any of the nine Justices is not participating in a case (e.g., a seat is vacant or a Justice has had to recuse).

[ryan141 0]

Any news?  I looked at SCOTUSBlog and I don't think Drake v Jerejian was granted certiorari.

 

​Never mind.

[galapoola 102]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/042114zor_c0n2.pdf

 

I see no mention of John M. Drake v. Edward A. Jerejian at all, nor does the No. 13-827 appear, looks like they didn't decide whether or not to grant cert

     

[Steve_G 51]

david, on 21 Apr 2014 - 10:15 AM, said:

 

Question:  What does it mean for the Court to relist a case?

Answer:  When a case is “relisted,” that means that it is set for reconsideration at the Justices’ next Conference.  Unlike a hold, this will show up on the case’s electronic docket.  A relist can mean several things, including the fairly straightforward prospect that one or more Justices wants to take a closer look at the case; that one or more Justices is trying to pick up enough votes to grant review (four are needed); that the Justices are writing a summary reversal (that is, a decision that the lower court opinion was so wrong that the Court can decide the case on the merits without briefing or oral argument); or that one or more Justices are writing a dissent from the decision to deny review.

 

 

From the other thread

 

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/68373-what-will-scotus-do/page-6#entry869380

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

So with a "relist", chances are good that they're going to hear it, or at least they're thinking hard about it.

[Vlad G 345]

So with a "relist", chances are good that they're going to hear it, or at least they're thinking hard about it.

 

Nope, we don't know. It could be they decided to NOT hear it and Scalia got pissed and wants to write an opposition postion to that. It could mean they are horse trading for votes. It could mean they are writing a summary judgment in our favor, and want to read over it before they vote. 

 

We just don't know what it means. 

[ryan_j 0]

So with a "relist", chances are good that they're going to hear it, or at least they're thinking hard about it.

 

It's hard to say but I would say it's a good sign. They denied Woollard (MD) and Kachalsky (NY) right off the bat. 

 

The main reasons why they relist cases:

 

One or more of the Justices needed more time to consider

One or more of the Justices wants to write a dissent of a denial or grant

[Alex V 99]

When is the next conference?  When will we know if they plan to take the case?

[njpilot 671]

When is the next conference?  When will we know if they plan to take the case?

Next conference is April 25th. We may know on Monday the 28th.

[Spartiati 63]

It's hard to say but I would say it's a good sign. They denied Woollard (MD) and Kachalsky (NY) right off the bat. 

 

The main reasons why they relist cases:

 

One or more of the Justices needed more time to consider

One or more of the Justices wants to write a dissent of a denial or grant

Wouldn't it be great if they wrote a reversal?  Given how horrible the 3rd circuit decision was it would be so so nice....not holding my breath though...

[NYMetsFan86 9]

damn slackers couldnt get it done on on friday?? really??

[galapoola 102]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/supreme-court-declines-hear-challenge-nj-gun-law/

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has apparently deferred on weighing a gun-related case challenging New Jersey’s mandate that citizens must show a “justifiable need” to carry a gun in public for protection.

 

Another county heard from, gunfeed.com has "Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to N.J. gun law" as there lead link, think they got it wrong

[ryan_j 0]

Wouldn't it be great if they wrote a reversal?  Given how horrible the 3rd circuit decision was it would be so so nice....not holding my breath though...

 

Now, they could very well write a per curiam opinion and decide the case without oral argument, but I highly doubt they'll do that for this case. Besides, don't you want Ms. Wood arguing before the highest court in the land? I would line up outside for days just to see that!

 

But I think the most likely scenario is that they have the 4 votes for a grant, but the 5th one they are not 100% sure about, so they're giving him time to think about it. 

 

It could also be that they want to convince a 6th Justice to vote with the majority. My guess would be Elena Kagan would be that 6th Justice. That seems less likely though. 

[n4p226r 105]

that would mean they know the outcome before they even hear the case?  no judges would do that wink wink wink

[Mr.Stu 1,916]

that would mean they know the outcome before they even hear the case? no judges would do that wink wink wink

Not at all. The case had been argued at least 3 times: NJ superior court, NJ supreme court & 3rd circuit appeals court. SCOTUS can read all of those arguments and conclude the 3rd circuit's reasoning is faulty. I'm not sure but they might be able to use the 9th circuit's opinion as both sides of Drake referred to it as well.

 

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[Vlad G 345]

In fact the Roberts court has done a number of summary reversals without any arguments heared, the internet tells me they've been doing 5-7 a year. It is not outside the realm of posibilities

[ryan_j 0]

Oh they definitely can. In fact, a lot of cases are decided well before the orals and the orals are more or less a formality. In fact it is said that you don't win a case at orals, but you can lose it. 

[Spartiati 63]

Now, they could very well write a per curiam opinion and decide the case without oral argument, but I highly doubt they'll do that for this case. Besides, don't you want Ms. Wood arguing before the highest court in the land? I would line up outside for days just to see that!

 

But I think the most likely scenario is that they have the 4 votes for a grant, but the 5th one they are not 100% sure about, so they're giving him time to think about it.

 

It could also be that they want to convince a 6th Justice to vote with the majority. My guess would be Elena Kagan would be that 6th Justice. That seems less likely though.

Would definitely be entertaining, but the 3rd curcuit's opinion is just such a bad opinion I think can easily decide without orals. I'm no attorney but anyone with basic reasoning skills can see the issues and consequences of their ruling if it stands. Will be a tough week of waiting.

[olderguy 0]

Looks like we have been pushed to the May 2 conference.

 

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/petitions-were-watching/

[PeteF 1,044]

Does anyone know if there is another similar case at the federal level that is being heard?

Could they be waiting on the outcome of that case?

[Vlad G 345]

Does anyone know if there is another similar case at the federal level that is being heard?

Could they be waiting on the outcome of that case?

 

Sure, the 9th Circuit court case. 

[Pythagoras 2]

As they say, "The waiting is the hardest part"

[PeteF 1,044]

Sure, the 9th Circuit court case.

 

I meant another case beside Perutta. In a different circuit.

[ryan_j 0]

There is nothing else that relates to carry that has been petitioned for a writ of certioari and is currently pending.

 

There are several other cases, most of them in California. There is also Palmer in DC.

 

California and the 9th circuit has a win, currently, by way of Peruta v San Diego. Richards (Yolo county) and Baker (Hawaii) are also wins because of Peruta. Peruta is a win but AG Kamala Harris wants to intervene and appeal for a rehearing en banc. Whether or not she'll be granted that is unclear. But the Sheriff of San Diego County has basically washed his hands of the case. 

 

Maryland (4th), New York (2nd) and Mass (1st) are done for now. All three lost at the circuit courts, petitioned to SCOTUS and were denied. Maryland had won at the district but that was reversed by the 4th circuit, and subsequently denied certiorari by SCOTUS. 

 

DC has had one case (Palmer) pending for four years. It is unclear if/when this will be resolved, but I suspect it will be if they take Drake.

 

Texas has had a case denied, but involved right to carry for 18-20 year olds. This was McCraw, an NRA suit.

 

Colorado has a sorta carry case, Bonidy v USPS. This involves carry on postal property, such as post office parking lots. They won at the district and it is being appealed. 

 

There are a few state cases as well, including Pantano and Almeida in NJ. Pantano is important because it's the only case that the NJ Supreme Court has agreed to hear, and is the first Post-Heller carry case that NJ supreme court will hear. If we lose at the NJ Supreme Court, it can be petitioned for certiorari at the US Supreme Court. Evan Nappen is council.

 

There are a couple of other cases which are pretty insignificant in the whole picture but I should mention them anyway. One of them was Embody v Tennessee which involved open carry of an AK-47 in Tennessee. The Supreme Court turned down that case in the first conference with Drake. There is also Nichols v Brown in California, which also involves open carry. Who knows what will happen to this, but I suspect it will go pretty much nowhere. 

 

Oh one last one, Puerto Rico's supreme court issued a decision (in Spanish) which made it a shall issue... ummm... territory? Anyway, PR is now shall issue. 

[Steve_G 51]

After 4 years, it appears we can send this thread off to the archives. This state is beyond hope, and the rest of the country probably isn't far behind.

[Fawkesguy 57]

What happened?  They refused to hear it?

[njpilot 671]

What happened?  They refused to hear it?

Yes. Denied.

 

Going in other thread.

[NYMetsFan86 9]

SCOTUS sucks ass

[njpilot 671]

SCOTUS sucks ass

Yep. Bunch of traitors just like most elected officials. Their Oath means nothing to them.

 

Their rulings should mean nothing to us.