Preview of SCOTUS June 6, 2024 Conference
"Assault" Weapons, "large capacity" magazines, and more.
There are 14 petitions for a writ of certiorari scheduled for tomorrow’s SCOTUS conference. Waivers have been filed for seven of the petitions. No response was requested for six of them. When a waiver of the right to respond has been filed, and no justice asks for a response, the petition is automatically denied. For that matter, nearly every petition in which a response was requested is automatically denied. Those petitions in which a response has been requested are also almost invariably denied as well.
Eight cert petitions (not linked below) have survived their first SCOTUS conference. In each case, the FEDS filed a response asking that the petition be held pending the disposition of a case the justices had already decided to hear on the merits.
The eight petitions being held involve Federal prohibitions on the possession of firearms and ammunition by prohibited persons.
Nearly all of the petitions denied this term (and last term) were petitions by persons prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition.
Reeves v. New Jersey is the only petition involving a person prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition in which a justice requested a response.
The Reeves petition (linked below) presents an excellent question to the justices. Mr. Reeves was a security guard in New Jersey who had a limited license to carry a handgun. At the time of his arrest, New Jersey did not issue unrestricted licenses to the general public. That changed in 2022 after SCOTUS published its opinion in NYSRPA v. Bruen.
In its response, New Jersey argued that Mr. Reevees doesn’t have standing because his license was issued by a judge. That is a frivolous argument, given that judges in New York also issued licenses to carry handguns.
One problem with this case is that when Mr. Reeves was pulled over by police, he flashed a badge saying he was one of them.
In addition to the handgun conviction, Mr. Reeves was convicted of impersonating a police officer.
The six preliminary injunction cert petitions out of Illinois involving “assault” weapons and magazine bans all survived last week’s conference and were relisted to tomorrow’s conference. This makes the third or fourth conference for each of the petitions. In years past, the probability of a petition being granted declined after reaching its fourth conference without being granted. Rarely will a petition with multiple listings be accompanied by a dissent to the denial of granting the cert petition. Relisted petitions are typically denied without comment by any of the justices.
Although we can always hope that SCOTUS will grant the Illinois petitions to be decided on the merits, I think it is unlikely. If the petitions were going to be granted then the “assault” weapons case out of Maryland would have been held. Instead, the petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment was denied without comment by any of the justices.
The Maryland petition might have been denied because petitions before judgment require a vote of five justices instead of the usual vote of four justices.
I think the best we can hope for is a summary reversal of the denial of the preliminary injunctions with instructions to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to comply with the methodology the Supreme Court mandated in NYSRPA v. Bruen, but that is a long shot.
In any event, there are only two conferences left after tomorrow before the Justices go on summer vacation. There is a very small possibility that the petitions could be relisted to the SCOTUS long conference at the end of September or the first conference of the 2024 term on October 11th. A SCOTUS rule allows a petition to be relisted if it can be granted and decided in the following term.
On Monday, June 10th, SCOTUS will issue its Orders list at 9:30 AM ET. If a petition does not appear as denied on the list and has not been granted, then it will be relisted.
Ivan Antonyuk, et al v. Steven G. James, et al QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether the proper historical time period for ascertaining the Second Amendment’s original meaning is 1791, rather than 1868; and 2. Whether “the people” must convince government officials of their “good moral character” before exercising their Second Amendment right to bear arms in public. - Antonyuk PI appeal - Response due May 9, 2024. May 09 2024 Brief of Steven G. James and Matthew J. Doran in opposition submitted. May 15 2024 Reply brief filed. May 21 2024 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/6/2024. Kristopher Lee Rocco, Petitioner v. United States QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that has ever crossed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, if it is facially unconstitutional? II. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment? Subsidiary Question: Whether this Court should hold the instant Petition pending United States v. Rahimi, 22-915, __U.S.__, 2023 WL 4278450 (June 30, 2023) (granting cert.), given the government’s concession in Garland v. Range, No. 23-374, that Rahimi presents “closely related Second Amendment issues” with respect to constitutional challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and justifies a decision to “hold the petition for a writ of certiorari” in Range “pending its decision Rahimi”, Government’s Petition for Certiorari in Garland v. Range, 23-374, at 7 (Filed October 5, 2023)... - Response due June 6, 2024. May 14, 2024 Waiver filed. May 21 2024 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/6/2024. Dequon Reon Stovall, Petitioner v. United States QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that has ever crossed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, if it is facially unconstitutional? II. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment? Subsidiary Question: Whether this Court should hold the instant Petition pending United States v. Rahimi, 22-915, __U.S.__, 2023 WL 4278450 (June 30, 2023) (granting cert.), given the government’s concession in Garland v. Range, No. 23-374, that Rahimi presents “closely related Second Amendment issues” with respect to constitutional challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and justifies a decision to “hold the petition for a writ of certiorari” in Range “pending its decision Rahimi”, Government’s Petition for Certiorari in Garland v. Range, 23-374, at 7 (Filed October 5, 2023)... - Response due June 6, 2024. May 14, 2024 Waiver filed. May 21 2024 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/6/2024. Shawn Reeves v. New Jersey 23-6521 QUESTION PRESENTED Does prosecuting a person for possessing a firearm without a permit violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments when that person was unable to receive such a permit solely due to an unconstitutional requirement that he establish a heightened need for self-defense? - Due April 8, 2024 Waiver filed 2-5. Response Requested. (Due 4-8, 2024). DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/15/2024. Response due May 8, 2024. May 08 2024. Brief of New Jersey in opposition submitted. May 08 2024 Brief of New Jersey in opposition submitted. May 20 2024 Reply brief filed. May 22 2024 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/6/2024. Warren Ledominique Davis, Petitioner v. United States The question presented is: Whether a ruling in Mr. Rahimi’s favor would affect the Fifth Circuit’s plain-error analysis concerning the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1). May 14 2024 Waiver. May 22 2024. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/6/2024. Demarcus Deon Staples, Petitioner v. United States The question presented is: Whether a ruling in Mr. Rahimi’s favor would affect the Fifth Circuit’s plain-error analysis concerning the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1). May 14 2024 Waiver. May 22 2024. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/6/2024. Gary Allen Kachina, Petitioner v. United States Handwritten petition but basically 18 USC 922(g)(1) May 15 2024 Waiver. May 22 2024. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/6/2024. Hector Patricio Galvan, Petitioner v. United States QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violate the Second Amendment on its face or as applied in this case? 2. Does the mere movement of a firearm from one state to another mean that every subsequent act of possession is possession “in or affecting commerce?” 3. Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) exceed Congress’s enumerated powers? May 16 2024 Waiver. May 22 2024. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/6/2024. Assault weapon and/or magazine ban Cert Petitions Dane Harrel, et al., Petitioners v. Kwame Raoul, Attorney General of Illinois, et al. QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Whether the Constitution allows the government to prohibit law-abiding, responsible citizens from protecting themselves, their families, and their homes with semiautomatic firearms that are in common use for lawful purposes. (2) Whether the Constitution allows the government to prohibit law-abiding, responsible citizens from protecting themselves, their families, and their homes with ammunition magazines that are in common use for lawful purposes. (3) Whether enforcement of Illinois’s semiautomatic firearm and ammunition magazine bans should be enjoined. Harrel FPC Response due April 15, 2024. Apr 15 2024 Brief in opposition submitted. Apr 26 2024 Reply filed. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/16/2024. May 20 2024 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/23/2024. May 28 2024 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/30/2024. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/6/2024. Javier Herrera, Petitioner v. Kwame Raoul, Attorney General of Illinois, et al. QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether semiautomatic rifles and standard handgun and rifle magazines do not count as “Arms” within the ordinary meaning of the Second Amendment’s plain text. Whether there is a broad historical tradition of States banning protected arms and standard magazines from law-abiding citizens’ homes. Herrera Response due April 15, 2024. Apr 15 2024 Brief of n opposition submitted. Apr 26 2024 Reply filed. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/16/2024. May 20 2024 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/23/2024. May 28 2024 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/30/2024. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/6/2024. Caleb Barnett, et al., Petitioners v. Kwame Raoul, Attorney General of Illinois, et al. The question presented is: Whether Illinois’ sweeping ban on common and long-lawful arms violates the Second Amendment. Barnett NSSF Response due April 15, 2024. Apr 15 2024 Brief in opposition submitted. Apr 26 2024 Reply filed. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/16/2024. May 20 2024 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/23/2024. May 28 2024 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/30/2024. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/6/2024. National Association for Gun Rights, et al., Petitioners v. City of Naperville, Illinois, et al. QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Is the State of Illinois’ ban of certain handguns constitutional in light of the holding in D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that handgun bans are categorially unconstitutional? 2. Is the “in common use” test announced in D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), hopelessly circular and therefore unworkable? 3. Can the government ban the sale, purchase, and possession of certain semi-automatic firearms and firearm magazines that are possessed by millions of law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes when there is no analogous Founding era regulation? NAGR v. Naperville Response due April 15, 2024. Apr 15 2024 Brief in opposition submitted. Apr 25 2024 Reply filed. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/16/2024. May 20 2024 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/23/2024. May 28 2024 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/30/2024. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/6/2024. Jeremy W. Langley, et al., Petitioners v. Brendan F. Kelly, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Illinois State Police, et al. QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Is the State of Illinois’ absolute ban of certain commonly owned semi-automatic handguns constitutional in light of the holding in D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that handgun bans are categorially unconstitutional? 2. Is the State of Illinois’ absolute ban of all commonly owned semi-automatic handgun magazines over 15 rounds constitutional in light of the holding in D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that handgun bans are categorially unconstitutional? 3. Can the government ban the sale, purchase, possession and carriage of certain commonly owned semi-automatic rifles, pistols, shotguns and standard capacity firearm magazines tens of millions of which are possessed by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes when there is no analogous historical ban as required by D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). Langley Response due April 15, 2024. Apr 15 2024 Brief in opposition submitted. Apr 30 2024 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/16/2024. May 20 2024 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/23/2024. May 28 2024 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/30/2024. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/6/2024. Gun Owners of America, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Kwame Raoul, Attorney General of Illinois, et al. The question presented is: Whether Illinois’ categorical ban on millions of the most commonly owned firearms and ammunition magazines in the nation, including the AR-15 rifle, violates the Second Amendment. Gun Owners of America, Inc., et al., v. Kwame Raoul, et al. Response due April 15, 2024. Apr 15 2024 Brief in opposition submitted. Apr 30 2024 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/16/2024. May 20 2024 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/23/2024. May 28 2024 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/30/2024. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/6/2024.