Will winning lower court 2nd Amendment rulings hurt our chances at winning cases at SCOTUS?

[Aim1]

President Trump has quietly confirmed over 185 Conservative judges including some in the very liberal 9th Circuit which is great, however, could there be unintended consequences?

If we win major lower court 2nd Amendment cases we would not appeal them to the US Supreme Court as there would be no reason to and if the anti-gun side chose not to appeal we would be left with precedent setting cases that are confined to that jurisdiction (if I'm correct?) but not nearly as solid as if SCOTUS had ruled on the case.

I do know that SCOTUS is more likely to grant certori (accept) a case if there is a split in the circuits, but if all of the circuits are agreeing and making positive 2nd amendment rulings then it is less likely they would accept a case, no?

If I'm correct rulings could be binding in certain states where that circuit has jurisdiction not but not others.

So, if we are winning and not appealing all of these lower court cases we could get a patchwork of rulings that are don't cover the entire nation unlike a SCOTUS ruling which effects the entire country.


Will winning lower court 2nd Amendment rulings hurt our chances at winning cases at SCOTUS?

 

[Pat Riot]

That is a very interesting question and makes a valid point. The trouble with SCOTUS is they don’t always allow cases to be heard or put on their agenda. I am of the opinion that a win at any level is a good thing.

 

[stillquietvoice]

I don't believe that most anti's would want to let go after a lower court ruling. Look at California mag cap ban.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

First, let's get this straight. Trump hasn't appointed any sort of monumental number of judges. Obama appointed 329. Bush II appointed 327. Clinton did 378. Bush I did 193. You get the picture. Did you notice us winning a lot of 2nd amendment SCOTUS cases during Obama and Clinton or immediately after they were in office?

Second, not all of the appointees are necessarily pro gun or are necessarily biased to have cases decided on the basis of their personal political views.

Third, SCOTUS already doesn't hear the vast majority of 2nd amendment cases.

Fourth, cases should be won in the lower courts. People going to court should not have to be put through the burden of getting justice via a lengthy and expensive court process.

Fifth, just because a case might go to SCOTUS does not mean that they will hear it and if they do, does not mean it will be decided in our favor.

Will winning lower court 2nd Amendment rulings hurt our chances at winning cases at SCOTUS?

No. The implied logic that this would be the case is convoluted and not based on any precedent so far. There is no reason to believe it will be different now.

 

[BigBore44]

I believe the more lower courts we have ruling in our favor, the less likely we we are to lose if/when they appeal to SCOTUS. We need RBG to go ahead and retire. Then they can appeal all they want.

 

[ATLDave]

No. No. No. that’s not how this works at all.

First, the Supreme Court most often grants certiorari in situations where there is a circuit split - where different federal appeals courts are adopting different rationales or tests or rules of law. Today, one of the biggest problems is that very few circuit courts are taking 2nd amendment rights seriously at all. We are hardly suffering from the problem of “too much winning” in the federal courts. Some pro-2nd circuit decisions would increase the chances of the supremes taking one all the way to the merits.

Second, Roberts and one or two others on the court are likely influenced by the weight of opinion coming from below. Every time another district court judge or circuit appeals panel rules that a particular restriction is “reasonable” and doesn’t “unduly” burden the right to KBA, Roberts and maybe one or two others get less likely to issue a clear pronouncement that the 2nd really is as broad and bright-line as we at THR generally think.

Third, if you get to the point where district and circuit judges always strike down gun restrictions and the Supreme Court won’t cert... well, that’s not a problem!!! We should be so lucky!!! We’re nowhere near that state of affairs.

remember that the city of NY WON its cases below in the absurd transportation restriction scheme. We don’t have the “problem” of lower courts ruling in our favor too much. And that’s not a “problem” anyway.

 

[BSA1]

IMO Chief Justice Roberts is not to be trusted. Without Justice Scalia Roberts is showing his liberal side and is being influenced by the Liberals in the Court. That is why we badly need another Conservative Justice on the bench..

 

[Aim1]

No. No. No. that’s not how this works at all.

First, the Supreme Court most often grants certiorari in situations where there is a circuit split - where different federal appeals courts are adopting different rationales or tests or rules of law. Today, one of the biggest problems is that very few circuit courts are taking 2nd amendment rights seriously at all. We are hardly suffering from the problem of “too much winning” in the federal courts. Some pro-2nd circuit decisions would increase the chances of the supremes taking one all the way to the merits.

Second, Roberts and one or two others on the court are likely influenced by the weight of opinion coming from below. Every time another district court judge or circuit appeals panel rules that a particular restriction is “reasonable” and doesn’t “unduly” burden the right to KBA, Roberts and maybe one or two others get less likely to issue a clear pronouncement that the 2nd really is as broad and bright-line as we at THR generally think.

Third, if you get to the point where district and circuit judges always strike down gun restrictions and the Supreme Court won’t cert... well, that’s not a problem!!! We should be so lucky!!! We’re nowhere near that state of affairs.

remember that the city of NY WON its cases below in the absurd transportation restriction scheme. We don’t have the “problem” of lower courts ruling in our favor too much. And that’s not a “problem” anyway.

.
So what if because of winning in the lower courts we do not have split circuits and thus a case is less likely to be accepted (granted ceroti) by SCOTUS?

 

[GEM]

Not being a legal expert, have any of the circuit courts given a pro state ban decision on assault weapon and magazine laws? Yes, I could look it up but I'm sure someone knows. I'm pretty sure we haven't seen a ban wiped out by a decisive full circuit decision.

If we don't have two circuits in opposition, then the chances of a SCOTUS decision is zip?

I also will opine that agenda of appointing conservative justices find gun rights very low on the totem pole as compared to other conservative social issues.

Certainly, gun rights are nonexistent as an actual legislative priority from the party of those who spout gun rights and do nothing. I'm waiting for a tweet on the VA situation, expressing horror that such a bill would be passed.

 

[AlexanderA]

Always take what you can get and worry about the ultimate consequences later.

 

[Obturation]

I just want them to repeal the NFA, I would think even the anti's would go for getting rid of the law that folks currently buy sbr's, machine guns and suppressors under

 

[ATLDave]

.
So what if because of winning in the lower courts we do not have split circuits and thus a case is less likely to be accepted (granted ceroti) by SCOTUS?

what if I win the lottery tomorrow?

We have LOTS of adverse district and circuit court authority right now and comparatively little that is good. You seem to think we’re mostly winning in court. That would be incorrect.

 

[Aim1]

what if I win the lottery tomorrow?

Having pro-2nd Amendment rulings in the lower courts because of Trump's court picks is more likely to happen. lol. Sorry.

 

[GEM]

Has a state ban been overturned and stuck? An opinion that that has not become the law of the land in that district isn't a win.

 

[ATLDave]

Having pro-2nd Amendment rulings in the lower courts because of Trump's court picks is more likely to happen. lol. Sorry.

Neither scenario - me winning the lottery or EVERY case being decided in a pro-2nd amendment manner before reaching the SupCt - is remotely likely. Neither is going to happen. And if either did, it would be a wonderful problem to have.

 

[tark]

Obama appointed 329. Bush II appointed 327. Clinton did 378. Bush I did 193.

You're not telling the whole story. Bush 43, Clinton and Obama all were two term presidents. The totals you list are after a full eight year presidency. Trump's 185 after only three years is a staggering number, and it is a record.

 

[Aim1]

Neither scenario - me winning the lottery or EVERY case being decided in a pro-2nd amendment manner before reaching the SupCt - is remotely likely. Neither is going to happen. And if either did, it would be a wonderful problem to have.

Well, no one said every case would be decided pro-2nd Amendment.

Then their is the case of whether or not the other side appeals it to SCOTUS.

 

[ATLDave]

Ok, we’ll if every case is not being decided in a pro-2nd fashion, then what the heck are you on about in this thread?

I’m sorry, this thread is just bizarre. Take it from a practicing lawyer who has taken lots of cases up on appeal.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

You're not telling the whole story. Bush 43, Clinton and Obama all were two term presidents. The totals you list are after a full eight year presidency. Trump's 185 after only three years is a staggering number, and it is a record.

Are you sure you are telling the whole story? I am just curious because you state that the number of appointments by Trump in 3 years is "staggering" and is a "record."

The only record Trump holds for 3 years of appointments would be at best, 2nd place. Is that the staggering record you meant? Surely you can see where you piqued my interest given that after 3 years of office, Jimmy Carter had made 197 confirmed appointments which would appear mathematically superior to the number Trump has made during the same 3 years in office qualifier. Sure, Trump has a few more days before his full 3 year time frame is up, but traditionally, nobody is getting confirmed after mid December and before February of the following year, so Trump has likely plateaued and his 3 year run has come to an end.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_judicial_appointments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Jimmy_Carter

How many years it took Presidents to get appointments confirmed is not really material. What is material is how many they made overall because that is the number for which there should be some sort of bias in the legal system for the country. Either way, Trump staggers in at 2nd Place.

 

[CapnMac]

So what if because of winning in the lower courts we do not have split circuits and thus a case is less likely to be accepted (granted ceroti) by SCOTUS?

Uhm, please read AltDave again.

If we "win" in lower courts, we have no need to "win" at SCOTUS.
If the Circuits agree (and we are winning there) then, we need no cases to go to SCOTUS.

Please remember that SCOTUS is the court of last resort (which is one of the reasons that they debate and decide which cases to argue). To get to SCOTUS, you do so on Appeal. Which means you have "lost" at least one case, and you are asking for the case to be re-examined due to a misapplication or misinterpretation of the law used in that specific case. Which is what to the next higher court of appeal.

We can see an example of this in the case in Connecticut against Remington. Defendants asked for a summary motion (for in-applicability, IIRC). The trial judge granted that. Plaintiff appealed, and the motion was reversed. Defendant appealed to CT SC, who upheld the original decision (overturned the appeal). Plaintiff then advanced that appeal to SCOTUS, who then reversed the last decision. All that does is send the matter back for further pre-trial motions. The process is the process. You can't get tied up in any one step of it.

 

[tark]

Trump staggers in at 2nd Place.

I stand corrected, Sir! Still impressive, I think. Especially what Trump is doing in the 9th Circuit.

 

[Basura Blanca]

I'll take Trump's appointments over what would've been Clinton's but that's where my excitement ends.

This whole thing is predicated on some iffy logic, mainly that judges are robot spawns of the masters who seat them. Nothing could be further from the truth. There's also an assumption that the 9th is remarkably "liberal" and that the balance is changing to the benefit of the 2A, yet both those claims are dubious too. Besides that, Alex Kozinski was forced into retirement last year, a setback for gun rights for sure.

 

[huntsman]

You want more then Heller? Sure dream big.