Supreme Court Second Amendment Update 5-21-2025
Although the United States Supreme Court can continue to relist the “large capacity” magazine (Ocean State Tactical) and “assault rifle” (Snope) cert petitions into the next term, which begins on the first Monday in October, that is unlikely. It is even less likely given that the petition for a writ of certiorari in the magazine ban case out of the District of Columbia (Hanson) has been distributed for the June 6th conference.
We will soon have a decision. Very likely by June 9th. If we don’t have a decision on the cert petitions by then, well, the last conference for this term is scheduled for June 26th, after which the justices take the summer off. At the end of September, there will be a clean-up conference, called the “Long conference,” where most of the unresolved cert petitions from this term and those that accumulated over the justices’ summer break are disposed of, usually by a denial of the petition, sometimes by a relist, sometimes by a grant of the petition.
Andrew Hanson, et al., Petitioners v. District of Columbia, et al. No. 24-936 (magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds) QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution allows a categorical ban on arms that are indisputably common throughout the United States and overwhelming used for lawful purposes (generally) and self-defense (specifically).
Hansen is an appeal from a final judgment. The other (Ocean State Tactical) is an interlocutory appeal. SCOTUS has made it clear that it is not going to grant Second Amendment interlocutory appeals. But now that there is an appeal of a final judgment petition to consolidate with Ocean State Tactical, this might be the very first exception.
The “assault rifle” cert petition (Snope) is also relisted for tomorrow’s SCOTUS conference on May 22, 2025, at which the justices will discuss and vote on which petitions they will grant.
There is a third cert petition that presents solely a facial challenge to the Federal “Felon” in possession ban. We know it will be denied because SCOTUS held in US v. Rahimi that if a law has constitutional applications, then a facial challenge to the law fails. Also, SCOTUS has denied hundreds of cert petitions challenging the Federal law, both facially and as applied.
Which brings us to:
Melynda Vincent, Petitioner v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General No. 24-1155 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Second Amendment allows the federal government to permanently disarm Petitioner Melynda Vincent, who has one seventeen-year-old nonviolent felony conviction for trying to pass a bad check. May 08 2025 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 11, 2025)
In this case, Melynda Vincent lost before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in her as applied challenge to the law because the 10th Circuit refuses to allow people to challenge the law as it applies to them.
Contrast this with the Bryan David Range case out of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, where Mr. Range won his as applied challenge, but Attorney General Pamela Bondi decided not to file a cert petition after obtaining an extension of time to file her petition.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General, et al., Applicants v. Bryan David Range No. 24A881 In 1995, respondent Bryan David Range was convicted of making a false statement in order to obtain food stamps, in violation of 62 Pa. Ann. § 481(a). App., infra, 5a. State law classified that offense as a misdemeanor and made it punishable by up to five years of imprisonment. Id. at 6a. As a result, Section 922(g)(1) disqualified respondent from possessing firearms. Mar 14 2025 Application (24A881) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until April 22, 2025.
Keep an eye on the Melynda Vincent cert petition for Amicus briefs filed by the so-called “gun-rights” groups in support of granting the cert petition. I suspect few, if any, will be filed in support. Read what the Trump administration has to say in its brief in opposition to the granting of the cert petition. I suspect that the Federal government will mention that it has “revitalized” the Federal program by which prohibited persons can have their Federal prohibition on gun possession removed, but fail to mention that it does not restore one’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms under state law.
A few words on these conferences, where the justices vote on which petitions to grant.
These conferences are known as “Discuss conferences, " which is a lie. The justices don’t actually discuss the petitions in these conferences; they do not even vote on all the petitions scheduled for the conference. The only petitions voted on are those petitions in which a justice has called for a vote. The only “discussion” that takes place is a brief statement as to why the petition should be granted. For example, “This petition presents a question by which we can resolve an intractable Rule 10 split.”
Most of the justices never bother to read a cert petition, a brief in opposition to granting cert, or the optional reply brief. Reportedly, seven of the nine justices rely on short memos written by clerks in making their decisions.
Moreover, petitions are never actually discussed. There is an unwritten rule that the justices will not discuss petitions or try to lobby individual justices to take a position. If a justice in the minority wants to change a vote of a justice in the minority, the justice does it by circulating a draft dissent.
The only time a case is discussed at length is after the petition is granted, the case fully briefed on the merits, and the justices get together to vote on its disposition and appoint who will write the majority opinion (made by the most senior justice in the majority).
Most cases are decided after oral argument, and that conference takes place after oral argument. It is unclear if the vote takes place on the same day after oral argument or at the end of the week when all cases have been argued.
Notwithstanding a relist of Ocean State Tactical and/or Snope, five Second Amendment cert petitions are scheduled for the May 29th conference, and one is scheduled for the June 5th conference.
There are eleven applications for an extension of time to file a cert petition, and forty-eight cert petitions filed in cases waiting to be scheduled for a conference.
With a little over five weeks to go before the justices go on their summer break, most of the remaining Second Amendment cert petitions filed in this term will be disposed of in the long conference at the end of September.
Ocean State Tactical, LLC, dba Big Bear Hunting and Fishing Supply, et al, Petitioners v. Rhode Island, et al. No. 24-131 The questions presented are: 1. Whether a retrospective and confiscatory ban on the possession of ammunition feeding devices that are in common use violates the Second Amendment. 2. Whether a law dispossessing citizens without compensation of property that they lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the Takings Clause. David Snope, et al., Petitioners v. Anthony G. Brown, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of Maryland, et al. No. 24-203 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Constitution permits the State of Maryland to ban semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in America. Ladarrell C. Washington, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6791 QUESTION PRESENTED Is the lifetime ban on possession of firearms by all felons, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), plainly unconstitutional on its face under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), because it is permanent and applies to all persons convicted of felonies?