NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC v CITY OF NEW YORK

Should SCOTUS still hear the case?

On one hand, the change to NY's law subsequent to the filing of this case is a transparent ploy by NY to avoid SCOTUS scrutiny of their bad laws.

On the other hand, there is no longer a controversy for the SCOTUS to settle. The petitioners have gotten relief, due to the changes to NY law post-filing.

Rep Sheldon Whitehouse writes this brief, chastising the court, and threatening them with court packing if they don't stand down.

Summary article about the above brief.


Regarding the original case
The case was brought by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and challenged New York City rules that barred transporting firearms to gun ranges outside the city limits. New York won the legal fight before two lower courts, including a panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

But after the Supreme Court agreed to review the Second Circuit decision, New York amended the challenged rules in order to give the challengers “everything they want, ” according to New York’s corporation counsel, Zachary Carter. Because New York voluntarily amended the disputed laws and regulations, the case should no longer be reviewed by the justices, New York argues.

Comments

  • Yeah.

    Dems to SCOTUS: Stop being political, or we'll pack the court so it's political in a way we like.
  • dgm said:

    Yeah.

    Dems to SCOTUS: Stop being political in way we don’t like or we'll pack the court so it's political in a way we do like.

    You almost had it.
  • The "in a way we don't like" was implied.
  • dgm said:

    Should SCOTUS still hear the case?
    Yes.

    This is the same genre of shenanigans played by Chicago following McDonald.

    A case isn't moot where he issue is likely to recur, and it's likely that the NY legislature will continue to play three card monte with 2A rights.

    As a political matter, responding to a threat in a brief by granting the motion is so weak, it's hard to see even Roberts succumbing.
  • Is there precedent for such a situation? Specifically where the SCOTUS hears a case about which the underlying specific controversy has been resolved.
  • Roe v. Wade.


  • Because she gave birth before the case was heard?
  • Yes.  It is likely to come up again, but the nature of the controversy means that the issue will evade review.  In Roe, it was the length of gestation that made review elusive.  In Chicago and DC, it was the strategy of the legislature to evade review.
  • Roe seems different though, in that the underlying law didn't change, whereas in NY it did.

    How do you contest a law that does not exist?
  • dgm said:

    Roe seems different though, in that the underlying law didn't change, whereas in NY it did.

    How do you contest a law that does not exist?
    The same way we give a woman who is not pregnant standing to complain about abortion.

    The specific law is repealed now, but the individual who challenged was restricted by that law unconstitutionally (or not) while the law applied to him.  In the NY example, the rationale for hearing the case is stronger than in Roe.

    In Roe, Texas wasn't playing games with the law so it couldn't be beaten in court.  Roe's condition meant she was no longer a party with any real controversy with the state at the time the case was heard.

    In NY, this is an evasion strategy from a government that has the capacity to re-instate the restrictions and that's the party asking that the case be dismissed as moot.


    I took a look at the amicus briefs because none of the links I was finding in posts were working correctly.  Aside from the odious democrat threat (Hey, nice court you got there...shame if anything happened to it.), a number of the briefs explicitly reject the individual right holding in Heller.
  • nbody said:

    dgm said:

    ... a number of the briefs explicitly reject the individual right holding in Heller.
    Of course.
Sign In or Register to comment.