I don't understand why it's good to lose Court Cases to get to SCOTUS

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

I know some people have said that it's ok that we lose some cases such as Maryland's Woollard v. Gallagher since it will hopefully get to SCOTUS quicker.


However, what if SCOTUS chooses not to hear the case, then we are left with a loss that sets precedent.



Wouldn't it be better to win the case, since it appears most anti-gun cities are willing to appeal it to SCOTUS for us, and if they don't, it's a win?
.

 

[General Geoff]

More accurately, it is in our best interest to lose at least one case, and win at least one similar case, preferably in different federal districts, so that the USSC is compelled to rule on at least one of them due to conflicting rulings from the lower courts.

 

[Phatty]

One of the biggest problems facing those who want to shape firearms law and challenge unconstitutional gun laws is that the jurisdictions with the worst gun laws usually also have anti-gun judges that will uphold those laws.

It would be great if we could pile up a ton of wins around the country, but the most egregious gun laws are in places like California and New York, where the judges are skewed against gun rights. Thank goodness that Illinois is in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and that there are some fair and impartial judges left on that court.

From a practical point of view, when we lose in a jurisdiction like New York with the eventual goal of reaching the Supreme Court, the initial loss simply sustains the status quo in that jurisdiction. It's not like we are moving backwards with that loss. A state like Wyoming is not going to all of sudden decide that because a New York court said that it is constitutional to limit magazine capacity to 7 rounds, the law is a good idea and will copy it. So, if we win we advance the cause, and if we lose we are pretty much in the same place we were in before the lawsuit was filed.

 

[Frank Ettin]

It's not really that it's good to lose. It's that our real goal is a decision from the Supreme Court. A decision of a Circuit Court of Appeal is law and controls only in that Circuit. A decision of the Supreme Court applies nationwide.

 

[brickeyee]

if SCOTUS chooses not to hear the case, then we are left with a loss that sets precedent.

Only in one circuit, and conflicts among the circuits are one of the surest ways to get SCOTS to take a case.

 

[Librarian]

It's not really that it's good to lose. It's that our real goal is a decision from the Supreme Court. A decision of a Circuit Court of Appeal is law and controls only in that Circuit. A decision of the Supreme Court applies nationwide.

Right - and, only the loser would appeal a Circuit loss to the Supreme Court.

Look, for example, at the McDonald v Chicago case - http://www.chicagoguncase.com/

The case lost at US District Court for Northern District of Illinois. It was appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes Illinois), and lost there; that was appealed to the Supreme Court - where McDonald prevailed.

When the goal is to get some change effected nationally, the case - or the content, the 'controversy' - must get to SCOTUS for resolution. When, for example, a 7th Circuit case says 'X', but a 4th Circuit case says 'not-X', we take it to the designated referee. If both cases were brought by 'our side', one of those would be seen as a 'loss'.

We could get almost the same effect by a win in each of the 12 circuits, at probably 12 times the (large) costs, a longer timeline than we're already seeing (McDonald/SCOTUS was June, 2010 - the motion for Summary Judgement for McDonald was filed with the District Court in July, 2008, and no SCOTUS cases on point since then), and some differences among circuits we might get forced to tolerate.

 

[Jim K]

Only the loser CAN appeal. A loss that allows an appeal is "good" only if the appellant is confident that he will prevail in the higher court. In this case, that is not certain, but a loss would leave things no worse than they are now in MD but could encourage other states to impose further restrictions. (One point against the state is that "rules" for issuance of a permit are so vague and confusing that the decision really is based solely on an ad hoc judgment, essentially the whim of a state police officer.)

Jim

 

[Dave Workman]

You guys have a pretty good handle on this.

Since I work at SAF, which mounted these cases, it was pretty clear that we would have a problem with Woollard on appeal, despite the remarkably intelligent trial court judge's ruling.

And yes, the ultimate goal is to get in front of the Supes

 

[Al Norris]

...it was pretty clear that we would have a problem with Woollard on appeal

If it wasn't clear from before the orals, Judge King made it clear when he tried to scuttle the lawsuit with his Rooker-Feldman inquiries. It was also woefully clear that these judges were unprepared. So much so, that Judge Davis even speculated about just throwing the case to the SCOTUS!