I was tracking 11 of 13 of the 2A petitions on my website. Only two cert petitions survived the SCOTUS "long conference." They were Young v. Hawaii (handgun Open Carry) and a magazine ban case out of New Jersey. Notably, the handgun carry case out of New Jersey was denied but that was not a surprise, it had a serious "vehicle" problem in the way of the cert petition being granted. That case was Reb Russell II. I explained why it was D.O.A. in this video last April. I followed up here, and here.
There were over 1,000 cert petitions denied today. I am currently downloading them (it will take a few hours) and then I will search them for any 2A cases I might have overlooked.
Updates will be posted on my Cert Petitions page at my website.
Here are the current denials of cert:
Demetreus A. Keahey, Petitioner v. Dave Marquis, Warden – This is probably the most important cert petition filed this term and ranks close to the top of all cert petitions ever filed. The Second Amendment is meaningless if the government can prosecute you but the judge won’t allow you to claim you acted in self-defense. The question presented is: Whether the failure to give a self-defense jury instruction contradicts, or is an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law regarding a defendant’s due process and jury trial rights when self-defense was the crux of the defendant’s case and the defendant introduced evidence to support the defense? Apr 16 2021 Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including June 11, 2021. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021. Coin toss.
Reb Russell, II, Petitioner v. New Jersey – Unless a “carry” cert petition is granted before this petition is scheduled for its first conference it is D.O.A. The petitioner did not even raise a Second Amendment claim in the lower courts (none is mentioned in the addendum). SCOTUS does not consider questions raised for the first time before it. Also, the opinion below is unpublished. This makes it even less likely for the petition to be granted even if it had raised a Second Amendment claim below. Finally, the cert petition is dated 9 days after the Young v. Hawaii en banc opinion was published. The very first paragraph of the petition cites the three-judge panel decision in Young v. Hawaii which was vacated well over three years ago. For the benefit of those of you who are new here, the primary reason why #SCOTUS grants cert petitions is to resolve circuit splits. A vacated three-judge panel decision that came to the opposite conclusion of the en banc panel which assumed jurisdiction over the case was a damn stupid thing to open your argument with. To make matters worse for the client his attorneys claim that the Young v. Hawaii three-judge panel decision said that the state must allow some form of carry, either openly or concealed. The three-judge panel decision in Young v. Hawaii could not have said that because a prior en banc panel of the 9th circuit court of appeals had already held that concealed carry is not protected by the Second Amendment. The three-judge panel decision in Young v. Hawaii was limited to handgun Open Carry. The petition does not argue for Open Carry. It does argue for concealed carry in a state where a permit allows one to carry a handgun openly or concealed. And, like every other cert petition which has proceeded it, this case is limited to handguns. It does not challenge any New Jersey prohibition on the Open Carry of long guns. Second Amendment. Coin Toss. May 17 2021 Response Requested. (Due June 16, 2021). Jun 09 2021 Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 16, 2021. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
Frederick M. Weber, Petitioner v. Ohio – QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
What is the proper standard of constitutional review of a law that impacts the core value of the Second Amendment—possession and use of a firearm within the home?
After reading so many rambling, tap-dancing, three-card monte cert petitions, it is nice to finally read one written in plain English.
Unfortunately, it does not comply with SCOTUS Rule 10.
The best that it can hope for is a GVR (Grant, Vacate, and Remand) in light of NYSRPA v. Corlett. Second Amendment. May 21 2021 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 24, 2021) DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021. Likely D.O.A.
Leevan Roundtree, Petitioner v. Wisconsin – I hope that this cert petition is not D.O.A. and/or does not misrepresent itself. There was a wide range of prohibited person cert petitions that were denied this term with Justice Barrett sitting on the bench, and of course, every prohibited person cert petition that presented a Second Amendment, Commerce Clause, or other Constitutional challenges to a firearms disposition law has been denied to date. Denying the cert petitions where the petitioners were convicted of drunk driving as the prohibiting crime did not surprise me. I was disappointed that the petitioner whose disqualifying crime was counterfeiting Bon Jovi cassette tape had his cert petition denied. This cert petition has a significant difference from the others, namely “Because this petition does not ask the Court to strike down any particular application of a felon dispossession law, and does not call into question the federal dispossession statute, it is fundamentally different from—and presents narrower legal questions than—petitions this Court has recently denied.”
The two questions are good questions. The petitions identify circuit splits. Moreover, if it is true that Wisconsin refuses to allow one to claim that the law is unconstitutional as it applies to him then it is a harbinger of really bad news for the Second Amendment if SCOTUS denies this cert petition. That said, this petition is likely D.O.A. Jun 04 2021 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 9, 2021) DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether a non-violent felon may bring an as-applied challenge to a state law that permanently denies Second Amendment rights to anyone convicted of a crime denominated as a felony.
2. Whether, in adjudicating a non-violent felon’s as-applied challenge to a state dispossession law, the reviewing court may uphold the law without analyzing the particular non-violent felony of which the challenger was convicted.
Regina Therese Drexler, Petitioner v. Theresa Spahn, et al. – QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether the First Amendment permits the issuance of a civil protection order to (i) punish a “pattern” of conduct where such conduct includes only protected speech and activities, or (ii) permits a civil protection order to act as a prior restraint of speech about a protected person?
2. Whether Section 1983 relief is available to remedy First Amendment violations arising from (i) punishment of “pattern” of conduct where such conduct includes only protected speech and activities, (ii) prior restraint of speech about a protected person, and (iii) punishment of appellate petitioning challenging such punishment and restraint, as well as Second Amendment and due process violations alleged but not addressed by the lower courts?
No Response filed + None requested = D.O.A. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021. D.O.A.
Khalid M. Turaani, Petitioner v. Christopher Wray, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al. – The question presented did not mention the Second Amendment but the petition does, 32 times.
The response was due on August 19, 2021, but the respondent neither filed a brief in opposition or a waiver. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021. D.O.A.
John A. Clifford, Petitioner v. New York – The questions presented are:
(1) Does the 2nd Amendment apply here;
(2) Does the granting of immunity in a federal civil case prohibit cross examination of a complaining witness about the admitted underlying bad act;
(3) was deliberately failing to send the jury back to deliberate a violation of due process:
(4) Was the appellate court’s failure to rule a violation of due process? DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021. D.O.A.
Donald H. Kimball, Petitioner v. Altoona Police Department, et al. – QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
1) The Supreme Court recently upheld a ruling unanimously holding that the Ninth Circuit “departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion” and remanded the case for reconsideration. (United States v. Sinenene-Smith, 140 S. Ct. 1575 (2020)) Shouldn’t the Eighth Circuit’s case be remanded for reconsideration by not only drastically departing from the principal of party presentation, introducing clearly erroneous evidence not previously on record, and being in direct conflict of the United States Supreme Court’s and their own previous rulings? The court’s choices to introduce unsubstantiated conclusions were not only extremely prejudicial in determining the outcome of the case, but also severely affected the rights of the petitioner. It was established in (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 780. 130 S.Ct. 3020. 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010)) that the Second Amendment guarantee is applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment and reiterated Heller’s reasoning that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component * of the Second Amendment right.” 130 S.Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599. 128 S. Ct. 2783).” When a state has instituted laws to assure the protection of one’s constitutional rights and an agent of that state, (Chief of Police), knowingly, and unnecessarily, denies one’s constitutional right without due process, and continues to do so after an order from the court to cease said violation, is that not clearly a Section 42 U.S.C. § 1983 violation?
2) In consideration of Kimball’s Appellate Brief, Statement of Issues for Review, No. VI. “Did the District Court abuse their discretion by introducing erroneous facts and arguments not on record and denying Mr. Kimball’s request for Leave to Amend?”, is that notification for, and warrants an abuse of discretion review? DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021. D.O.A.
Dario Reyes-Torres, Petitioner v. United States
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
Whether resident undocumented immigrants are part of the people whose right to keep and bear arms for individual self-defense the second amendment protects. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021. Likely D.O.A.
There were over 1,000 cert petitions denied today. I am currently downloading them (it will take a few hours) and then I will search them for any 2A cases I might have overlooked.
Updates will be posted on my Cert Petitions page at my website.
Here are the current denials of cert:
2021 Term
Cert Denied
Demetreus A. Keahey, Petitioner v. Dave Marquis, Warden – This is probably the most important cert petition filed this term and ranks close to the top of all cert petitions ever filed. The Second Amendment is meaningless if the government can prosecute you but the judge won’t allow you to claim you acted in self-defense. The question presented is: Whether the failure to give a self-defense jury instruction contradicts, or is an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law regarding a defendant’s due process and jury trial rights when self-defense was the crux of the defendant’s case and the defendant introduced evidence to support the defense? Apr 16 2021 Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including June 11, 2021. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021. Coin toss.
Reb Russell, II, Petitioner v. New Jersey – Unless a “carry” cert petition is granted before this petition is scheduled for its first conference it is D.O.A. The petitioner did not even raise a Second Amendment claim in the lower courts (none is mentioned in the addendum). SCOTUS does not consider questions raised for the first time before it. Also, the opinion below is unpublished. This makes it even less likely for the petition to be granted even if it had raised a Second Amendment claim below. Finally, the cert petition is dated 9 days after the Young v. Hawaii en banc opinion was published. The very first paragraph of the petition cites the three-judge panel decision in Young v. Hawaii which was vacated well over three years ago. For the benefit of those of you who are new here, the primary reason why #SCOTUS grants cert petitions is to resolve circuit splits. A vacated three-judge panel decision that came to the opposite conclusion of the en banc panel which assumed jurisdiction over the case was a damn stupid thing to open your argument with. To make matters worse for the client his attorneys claim that the Young v. Hawaii three-judge panel decision said that the state must allow some form of carry, either openly or concealed. The three-judge panel decision in Young v. Hawaii could not have said that because a prior en banc panel of the 9th circuit court of appeals had already held that concealed carry is not protected by the Second Amendment. The three-judge panel decision in Young v. Hawaii was limited to handgun Open Carry. The petition does not argue for Open Carry. It does argue for concealed carry in a state where a permit allows one to carry a handgun openly or concealed. And, like every other cert petition which has proceeded it, this case is limited to handguns. It does not challenge any New Jersey prohibition on the Open Carry of long guns. Second Amendment. Coin Toss. May 17 2021 Response Requested. (Due June 16, 2021). Jun 09 2021 Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 16, 2021. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
Frederick M. Weber, Petitioner v. Ohio – QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
What is the proper standard of constitutional review of a law that impacts the core value of the Second Amendment—possession and use of a firearm within the home?
After reading so many rambling, tap-dancing, three-card monte cert petitions, it is nice to finally read one written in plain English.
Unfortunately, it does not comply with SCOTUS Rule 10.
The best that it can hope for is a GVR (Grant, Vacate, and Remand) in light of NYSRPA v. Corlett. Second Amendment. May 21 2021 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 24, 2021) DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021. Likely D.O.A.
Leevan Roundtree, Petitioner v. Wisconsin – I hope that this cert petition is not D.O.A. and/or does not misrepresent itself. There was a wide range of prohibited person cert petitions that were denied this term with Justice Barrett sitting on the bench, and of course, every prohibited person cert petition that presented a Second Amendment, Commerce Clause, or other Constitutional challenges to a firearms disposition law has been denied to date. Denying the cert petitions where the petitioners were convicted of drunk driving as the prohibiting crime did not surprise me. I was disappointed that the petitioner whose disqualifying crime was counterfeiting Bon Jovi cassette tape had his cert petition denied. This cert petition has a significant difference from the others, namely “Because this petition does not ask the Court to strike down any particular application of a felon dispossession law, and does not call into question the federal dispossession statute, it is fundamentally different from—and presents narrower legal questions than—petitions this Court has recently denied.”
The two questions are good questions. The petitions identify circuit splits. Moreover, if it is true that Wisconsin refuses to allow one to claim that the law is unconstitutional as it applies to him then it is a harbinger of really bad news for the Second Amendment if SCOTUS denies this cert petition. That said, this petition is likely D.O.A. Jun 04 2021 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 9, 2021) DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether a non-violent felon may bring an as-applied challenge to a state law that permanently denies Second Amendment rights to anyone convicted of a crime denominated as a felony.
2. Whether, in adjudicating a non-violent felon’s as-applied challenge to a state dispossession law, the reviewing court may uphold the law without analyzing the particular non-violent felony of which the challenger was convicted.
Regina Therese Drexler, Petitioner v. Theresa Spahn, et al. – QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether the First Amendment permits the issuance of a civil protection order to (i) punish a “pattern” of conduct where such conduct includes only protected speech and activities, or (ii) permits a civil protection order to act as a prior restraint of speech about a protected person?
2. Whether Section 1983 relief is available to remedy First Amendment violations arising from (i) punishment of “pattern” of conduct where such conduct includes only protected speech and activities, (ii) prior restraint of speech about a protected person, and (iii) punishment of appellate petitioning challenging such punishment and restraint, as well as Second Amendment and due process violations alleged but not addressed by the lower courts?
No Response filed + None requested = D.O.A. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021. D.O.A.
Khalid M. Turaani, Petitioner v. Christopher Wray, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al. – The question presented did not mention the Second Amendment but the petition does, 32 times.
The response was due on August 19, 2021, but the respondent neither filed a brief in opposition or a waiver. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021. D.O.A.
John A. Clifford, Petitioner v. New York – The questions presented are:
(1) Does the 2nd Amendment apply here;
(2) Does the granting of immunity in a federal civil case prohibit cross examination of a complaining witness about the admitted underlying bad act;
(3) was deliberately failing to send the jury back to deliberate a violation of due process:
(4) Was the appellate court’s failure to rule a violation of due process? DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021. D.O.A.
Donald H. Kimball, Petitioner v. Altoona Police Department, et al. – QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
1) The Supreme Court recently upheld a ruling unanimously holding that the Ninth Circuit “departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion” and remanded the case for reconsideration. (United States v. Sinenene-Smith, 140 S. Ct. 1575 (2020)) Shouldn’t the Eighth Circuit’s case be remanded for reconsideration by not only drastically departing from the principal of party presentation, introducing clearly erroneous evidence not previously on record, and being in direct conflict of the United States Supreme Court’s and their own previous rulings? The court’s choices to introduce unsubstantiated conclusions were not only extremely prejudicial in determining the outcome of the case, but also severely affected the rights of the petitioner. It was established in (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 780. 130 S.Ct. 3020. 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010)) that the Second Amendment guarantee is applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment and reiterated Heller’s reasoning that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component * of the Second Amendment right.” 130 S.Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599. 128 S. Ct. 2783).” When a state has instituted laws to assure the protection of one’s constitutional rights and an agent of that state, (Chief of Police), knowingly, and unnecessarily, denies one’s constitutional right without due process, and continues to do so after an order from the court to cease said violation, is that not clearly a Section 42 U.S.C. § 1983 violation?
2) In consideration of Kimball’s Appellate Brief, Statement of Issues for Review, No. VI. “Did the District Court abuse their discretion by introducing erroneous facts and arguments not on record and denying Mr. Kimball’s request for Leave to Amend?”, is that notification for, and warrants an abuse of discretion review? DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021. D.O.A.
Dario Reyes-Torres, Petitioner v. United States
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
Whether resident undocumented immigrants are part of the people whose right to keep and bear arms for individual self-defense the second amendment protects. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021. Likely D.O.A.
