LKB posted this in comments over at Shooting News Weekly where I write.  I am not a lawyer but he is.

It isn’t great news, but it is more informed analysis than mine and I appreciate the education…

Sorry John, but your analysis of SCOTUS practice is not accurate. While it’s OK to think positively, don’t let wishful thinking color a realistic view of what’s going on. (BTW, the Maryland case is now styled Bianchi v. Brown.)

Contrary to your statement that “The overwhelming majority of appeals to SCOTUS are rejected without making it to a conference,” the truth is that virtually *ALL* cert petitions “go to conference” at some point. But just because they “go to conference” doesn’t mean the Court will actually discuss them — the vast number of them are just on a list that’s essentially, “OK, these are the cases that have been fully briefed. Nobody has indicated interest in taking them up, so they’ll be on the “cert denied” order list that comes out of the conference. Speak now or hold your peace.”

What’s uncommon, and a potential indication of a potential cert grant, is if a cert petition is “re-listed’; i.e., it went to conference but is then “re-listed” for discussion at a later conference . . . which is an indication that at least one Justice is interested. (Remember, it takes the votes of four Justices to grant cert, and typically they don’t want to vote to grant cert unless you’re pretty sure their side will prevail — that’s why we saw so many post-MacDonald cases that should have been taken being denied: the court was in a classic Mexican Standoff, with four pro-2A votes, four anti-2A votes, and the unpredictable Anthony Kennedy in the middle. Neither side wanted to take a case that they could well lose and thus significantly alter the existing legal landscape.)

I’m not seeing that any of these cases have been relisted. The fact that a lot of them were referred to conference at the same time may well indicate some interest in them, but from the dockets I’m not seeing anything remarkable. Recall too that just because a case goes to conference doesn’t mean the court can’t simply “hold” it — which they typically do if there’s a pending cert grant that might provide a rule of decision for that case.

My guess is that all of these will be held pending the Rahimi decision, with a good chance that many will just be GVR’d (cert GRANTED, judgment VACATED, case REMANDED for reconsideration in light of Rahimi).

3 thoughts on “Follow up on SCOTUS Conference & the Magnificent 7 gun ban appeals.”
  1. It should always be understood. The courts (especially the Supreme Court) as John says move at the speed of smell. Until the lower courts are done. The Supremes may not intervene.

  2. If Bianchi v Brown is not granted certiorari we have no hope. This case was GVR’d previously and was screwed up in the 4th Circuit. If at least four of the robed ones are not interested in restoring so many Americans their rights based on the courts’ precedent we are well and truly screwed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *