The petition for an emergency injunction for Justice Amy Coney Barrett was denied this afternoon by Justice Barrett and the Supreme Court.

Does this have any significant meaning?  Well, it means that the tradition of SCOTUS in refusing to get involved in interlocutory appeals continues apace.

Todd Vandermyde offers some additional details and discusses who’s likely in the lead to make it to SCOTUS first as a settled case.  (Spoiler:  Duncan out of California, probably.)



5 thoughts on “Bevis / NAGR application for SCOTUS emergency injunction DENIED”
  1. This sh!t isn’t going to even possibly be heard/argued/decided until 2025. “A Right delayed is a Right denied”…..Bullshit. I don’t get it…..

  2. I understand the USSC does not traditionally involve themselves in interlocutory matters. I don’t understand BATFE appealing injunctions and orders of vacatur to the USSC and receiving stays of such orders. This has happened in the bumpstock and frames and receivers ‘rule’. Seems to me the administrative agencies and their ‘rules’ and executive orders that ARE NOT law get the benefit of the doubt. WTF? Our rights as citizens are not worth protecting, as is the primary job of the feral grubberment? The feral grubberment and their unconstitutional administrative state seem to come out on top. What good is Heller, Staples, McDonald, Breuen etc good for, hmm???? USSC get off your regal robed asses and do your f’n job!!!!!

Comments are closed.