NYC 2A Case Dismissed

[Belsnickel]

This was a topic of conversation we had back when this was making its way through the courts. While I agreed the law was wrong on its merits, I was of the opinion that SCOTUS had no option but to dismiss it as moot because of the repeal of the law. Well, the SCOTUS has dismissed the case for that reason. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf

I pretty much fall in line with Kavanaugh on this, wherein I agree with the per curiam that the case is moot, but the issues at hand need to be revisited. It is simply a case of judicial activism for the court to hear a case and deliver an opinion on a repealed law. Alito makes some valid points, but the issue is that the law being challenged in the courts is not the new law that he addresses as a reason for the case not being moot. The plaintiffs would need to file a new suit at the district court to address the new laws. I also disagree with his arguments regarding damages, but that's something that I am more open to having my mind changed on.

[GMDino]

(04-27-2020, 03:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This was a topic of conversation we had back when this was making its way through the courts. While I agreed the law was wrong on its merits, I was of the opinion that SCOTUS had no option but to dismiss it as moot because of the repeal of the law. Well, the SCOTUS has dismissed the case for that reason. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf

I pretty much fall in line with Kavanaugh on this, wherein I agree with the per curiam that the case is moot, but the issues at hand need to be revisited. It is simply a case of judicial activism for the court to hear a case and deliver an opinion on a repealed law. Alito makes some valid points, but the issue is that the law being challenged in the courts is not the new law that he addresses as a reason for the case not being moot. The plaintiffs would need to file a new suit at the district court to address the new laws. I also disagree with his arguments regarding damages, but that's something that I am more open to having my mind changed on.

Once the initial law, the one the lawsuit was based on, was repealed that means there is no need for the lawsuit, correct?  Was it already at the SC level when that happened?

[Belsnickel]

(04-27-2020, 03:53 PM)GMDino Wrote: Once the initial law, the one the lawsuit was based on, was repealed that means there is no need for the lawsuit, correct?  Was it already at the SC level when that happened?

The change in law occurred in June 2019, after SCOTUS issued their writ to hear the case. They feared the new makeup of the court would lead to their case being lost and so they worked to make the issue moot before a decision could be made.

[BmorePat87]

Good stuff for judicial nerds.

[*michaelsean*]

It seems they also overturned an early 70's decision allowing less than unanimous jury decisions on serious crimes. Oddly I believe Kagan was against it, but that may have something to do with overturning precedent. For me, and i'm no scholar, I've always felt that once they decide to hear a case precedent shouldn't hold so much weight. If you don't want to continually rehash things, then don't hear the case, but once you agree to hear it then it's a whole new ballgame.

[fredtoast]

(04-28-2020, 10:43 AM)michaelsean Wrote:   For me, and i'm no scholar, I've always felt that once they decide to hear a case precedent shouldn't hold so much weight.  If you don't want to continually rehash things, then don't hear the case, but once you agree to hear it then it's a whole new ballgame.

Here is how it usually works.  Once a precedent is set based on a ruling in one specific case with one specific set of facts the argument in appeals after that become "This is why that precedent does not/should not apply to the specific facts in this new case".

Court rulings often narrow or expand precedents without completely overturning them

[*michaelsean*]

(04-28-2020, 04:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is how it usually works.  Once a precedent is set based on a ruling in one specific case with one specific set of facts the argument in appeals after that become "This is why that precedent does not/should not apply to the specific facts in this new case".

Court rulings often narrow or expand precedents without completely overturning them

OK that makes sense.  This one I wouldn't have guessed would have gone this way (the verdict one) but I kind of like it when they don't all fall in line with what you would guess.  But I guess a true conservative could say "Hey unanimous is our real tradition."  Whatever the reason, I like it.  I think unanimous is the way it should be.

Sorry for the hijack, Matt.