Supreme Court Second Amendment Update 2-14-2025
The two cases in which the gun-rights community seems to be the most interested have been relisted to next Friday’s conference. The first (Ocean State Tactical) involves “large capacity” magazines. It has been listed for conference six times and rescheduled twice. The second (Snope) involves “assault rifles.” It has been listed for conference five times and rescheduled once.
Given that cert petitions are now being listed for the February 28th conference, coupled with the fact that both have been relisted multiple times already, their relist to the 21st strongly suggests that this will be their last conference. Statistically speaking, they will be denied. Procedurally, neither petition presents a SCOTUS Rule 10 split between the Federal circuits or a state court of last resort on a Federal question. Resolving splits is the primary reason why SCOTUS grants petitions for the purpose of deciding the case on the merits.
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. Aug 02 2024 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. Response due November 5, 2024. Nov 05 2024 Brief of respondents Rhode Island, et al. in opposition filed. Nov 19 2024 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/6/2024. Dec 09 2024 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/13/2024. Dec 11 2024 Rescheduled. Jan 06 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2025. Jan 13 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2025. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/24/2025. Feb 14 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2025. (x6). Rescheduled x 2. 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. Aug 21 2024 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 12, 2024). Nov 12 2024 Brief of Anthony G. Brown, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Maryland, et al. in opposition submitted. Nov 26 2024 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/13/2024. Dec 11 2024 Rescheduled. Jan 06 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2025. Jan 13 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2025. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/24/2025. Feb 14 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2025. (x5). Rescheduled x1.
Other 2A petitions scheduled for the February 21, 2025 SCOTUS conference:
For those petitions in which a response was requested but not yet filed, they will survive their scheduled conference. Once a response has been filed, it is still likely to be denied at the post-response relist conference. For those petitions in which a waiver was filed or no response was filed and no response was requested by SCOTUS, those petitions are placed on the dead list. They are never voted on or discusssed. They will appear as denied on the Orders list the following week. Konstadin Bitzas, Petitioner v. New Jersey No. 24-681 QUESTIONS PRESENTED (Questions 2 & 4 are Second Amendment questions). 1. Under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), do defects in the search warrant application process, including failure to satisfy the oath requirement; providing an ambiguous and misleading criminal history; and omitting key facts about the complaining witnesses’ intoxication, render a criminal search warrant invalid? 2. Under Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) and United States v. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. 1889 (2024), did the warrant-issuing judge and the reviewing courts impermissibly blur-the-line between the emergency caretaker function requirements to enter a dwelling and the more stringent probable cause requirements for issuance of a criminal search warrant? 3. Under Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987), when an individual represents himself pro se at a criminal trial, does a trial court’s failure to conduct a colloquy to determine whether the defendant understands his right to testify violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment? 4. Under New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) and United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. ___ (2024), does the Second Amendment permit a state statute criminalizing the possession of firearms by persons not convicted of a violent crime or otherwise determined to pose a safety risk to themselves or others? Dec 19 2024 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 27, 2025). Jan 16 2025 Waiver. Jan 22 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2025. Torrence Denard Whitaker, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5997 QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Whether after New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) and United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. ___, 144 U.S. 144 S.Ct. 1889 (2024), a criminal defendant may raise an as-applied Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (2) If so, whether under the Bruen/Rahimi methodology, the Second Amendment is unconstitutional as applied to a defendant like Petitioner with only non-violent priors. Nov 12 2024 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 20, 2024). Dec 12 2024 Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 21, 2025. Jan 17 2025 Memorandum of respondent United States filed. Feds ask for Vacatur and remand. Jan 27 2025 Reply of petitioner Torrence Denard Whitaker filed. (Distributed). Jan 30 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2025. Cleate Wilson, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6102 QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the statute prohibiting possession of firearms by persons convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, violates the Second Amendment. II. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, and is unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Wilson’s intrastate possession of a firearm. Dec 05 2024 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 9, 2025). Jan 10 2025 Memorandum of respondent United States filed. The government argues in its memorandum that the petition should be dismissed because the petitioner did not preserve his Second Amendment claim in the lower courts. Jan 30 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2025. Marcus Albert Rambo, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6107 QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Whether after New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) and United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. ___, 144 U.S. 144 S.Ct. 1889 (2024), a criminal defendant may raise an as-applied Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (2) If so, whether under the Bruen/Rahimi methodology, the Second Amendment is unconstitutional as applied to a defendant like Petitioner with only non-violent priors. Dec 05 2024 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 9, 2025). Jan 10 2025 Memorandum of respondent United States filed. Feds ask for Vacatur and remand. Jan 22 2025 Reply of Marcus Albert Rambo submitted. Petitioner requests that SCOTUS request a response from the government before making its decision on the Feds requested GVR. Jan 30 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2025. The Gun Range, LLC, Petitioner v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, et al. No. 24-649 The question presented is: Whether prohibiting a business that provides Second Amendment-protected goods and services from operating in substantially all of a city’s land areas—and all of its commercial areas—violates the Second Amendment. Dec 09 2024 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 15, 2025). Jan 08 2025 Waiver. Jan 29 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2025. Corey Shaquielle Johnson, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6283 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? Jan 02 2025 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 12, 2025). Jan 22 2025 Waiver. Jan 30 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2025. Brent Howard, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6290 QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)—the statute that prohibits firearm possession by any person who was previously convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year”—violates the Second Amendment. (2) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause because it burdens the fundamental right of firearms possession and is not narrowly tailored to achieve any compelling government interest. (3) Whether application of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) to petitioner violated the Commerce Clause where the only proof of a nexus between his firearm possession and interstate commerce consisted of the fact that the firearm had crossed a state line at some point before coming into petitioner’s possession. Jan 07 2025 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 12, 2025). Jan 22 2025 Waiver. Jan 30 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2025. Deion Shawn Hester, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6301 QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether a person who was previously convicted of a felony is categorically excluded from the protections of the Second Amendment. Jan 06 2025 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 13, 2025). Jan 23 2025 Waiver. Jan 30 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2025. Mark Allen Hayden, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6326 QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether Floyd v. State, __ S.W.3d___, 2024 WL 4757855 (Tex. Crim. App. November 13, 2024) – issued by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals after the decision below -- demonstrates that Petitioner’s prior statute of conviction cannot be divided for the purposes of the categorical approach, and hence demonstrates a reasonable probability of relief if the court below were given a chance to reconsider in light of that intervening authority? Whether 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment, and whether this Court should hold the instant Petitition pending resolution of the circuit split presented by Range v. Garland, ___ F.4th___, 2024 WL 5199447 (3rd Cir. Dec. 23, 2024)(en banc), and United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120 (8th Cir. 2024)? Jan 14 2025 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 18, 2025). Jan 23 2025 Waiver. Jan 30 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2025. Joshua Wade, Petitioner v. University of Michigan No. 24-773 The question presented is: Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments allow a criminal ordinance that prohibits mere possession of firearms on an entire poorly-delineated university campus, except by permission of a single government official with unfettered discretion, which is granted only for “extraordinary circumstances.” Jan 16 2025 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 20, 2025). Feb 04 2025 Waiver. Feb 05 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2025. Feb 07 2025 Response Requested. (Due March 10, 2025).
2A petitions scheduled for the February 28, 2025 SCOTUS conference:
Jose Paz Medina-Cantu, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6427 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether courts must conduct a historical analysis to decide a Second Amendment challenge to a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). 2. Whether the government’s prosecution of petitioner under § 922(g)(5) violates the Second Amendment. Jan 28 2025 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 3, 2025). Feb 06 2025 Waiver. Feb 13 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/28/2025. Artis Womack, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6435 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? Jan 27 2025 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 3, 2025). Feb 06 2025 Waiver. Feb 13 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/28/2025.