Heller likely tomorrow (Monday June 23)

[hoffmang]

All,

A decision is likely in Heller tomorrow morning. It also is looking like Scalia is writing the lead opinion. That someone hints that we might have a 4-3-2 plurality opinion but that's stretching the tea leaves pretty far...

Opinions are issued starting at 10AM Eastern (7AM Pacific) and the court session usually lasts about an hour (depending on whether any of the justices read any of the opinions in court and how many opinions they issue.)

Scotusblog (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/) does a live blog (this is last Monday's (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/liveblog-opinions-61908/) to give you a flavor) and that will be the best place to get a first copy of the opinions in PDF.

There are 10 cases left to decide and court usually wraps up before the 4th of July holiday. There is an outside chance that they would both add a Thursday session (quite likely) and then release Heller this coming Thursday (not as likely.)

But then again.... It could just be two weeks!

-Gene

[Soldier415]

All,

A decision is likely in Heller tomorrow morning. It also is looking like Scalia is writing the lead opinion. That someone hints that we might have a 4-3-2 plurality opinion but that's stretching the tea leaves pretty far...

Opinions are issued starting at 10AM Eastern (7AM Pacific) and the court session usually lasts about an hour (depending on whether any of the justices read any of the opinions in court and how many opinions they issue.)

Scotusblog (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/) does a live blog (this is last Monday's (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/liveblog-opinions-61908/) to give you a flavor) and that will be the best place to get a first copy of the opinions in PDF.

There are 10 cases left to decide and court usually wraps up before the 4th of July holiday. There is an outside chance that they would both add a Thursday session (quite likely) and then release Heller this coming Thursday (not as likely.)

But then again.... It could just be two weeks!

-Gene


Thanks for the update Gene. I will be on a bus on Monday, but i will be checking news on the crackberry

[gmcal]

Can you elaborate on the possible 4-3-2 decision?

[ke6guj]

We'll see. They still have 10 opinions to release. I wonder what the max # they have done in the past. Could end up running later in the week.

[oaklander]

To quote Gene:

WOOT!

[chris]

i look forward to the decision of this case. i do hope that this case helps us out here in this state in the future.

[mblat]

Can you elaborate on the possible 4-3-2 decision?

Meaning for example:

Scalia writes opinion that is signed by 3 other judges that overturns ban for some reasons, going very very far - like - "what part of shall not be inringed don't you understand"
Kennedy writes concurrent opinion that overturns ban, but based on other reasons ( presumably not going THAT far - something like "regulation is OK, but this one goes too far") and 2 more judges join him.
Sauter writes opinion that says "ban is OK"

[VegasND]

Meaning for example:

Scalia writes opinion that is signed by 3 other judges that overturns ban for some reasons, going very very far - like - "what part of shall not be inringed don't you understand"
Kennedy writes concurrent opinion that overturns ban, but based on other reasons ( presumably not going THAT far - something like "regulation is OK, but this one goes too far") and 2 more judges join him.
Sauter writes opinion that says "ban is OK"


While I'd like a 7-0 "what part of..." decision, your example is more than I'm expecting. I just hope it's stronger than a 5-4 "the ban goes too far" and leaves us hanging. I'll definitely be reading opinions on this one.

[hoffmang]

That Scalia is most likely writing makes me think it slightly harder for him to get a 6-3 or 7-2. That said, predicting how majorities stacked this term has been very hard. What I was speculating about above would be:

Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy for "what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand."

Roberts, Ginsburg, and Breyer for overturning but some restrictions ok.

Souter and Stevens for the Brady Campaign....

-Gene

[Lee F. Smith]

Frankly I think they will issue the decision as the last one, close and lock the doors and head for the hills.

[elenius]

What would a 4-3-2 opinion mean legally? What's the case law resulting from it? Would it be "what part do you not understand" or the weaker "some restrictions ok"?

[mblat]

Frankly I think they will issue the decision as the last one, close and lock the doors and head for the hills.

I used to think that way, but no longer. It is pretty much accepted by everybody that the court will overrule the ban. Brady is ready for it. So any decision overturning ban won't be particularly controversial.


What would a 4-3-2 opinion mean legally? What's the case law resulting from it? Would it be "what part do you not understand" or the weaker "some restrictions ok"?

That is for courts to decide....... sad, ironic, but true.....

[thegratenate]

I don't understand how the minority opinions make that much difference. Isn't the opinion signed by the majority what gets recorded as case precedent?

And if we do get the 4-3-2 does that still count?

It seems like that could possibly be the worst case scenario, it would mean that the written decision is not backed by a majority. Sounds almost like the court equivalent of a hanging chad.

I hope that we get a really good "Christmas in June" but as long as this step is in the right direction it will lead us down the path that takes us to incorporation and then some real leaps for californian kind.

[Fjold]

Could the decision be made next Monday on the 30th of June?

[dfletcher]

I don't understand how the minority opinions make that much difference. Isn't the opinion signed by the majority what gets recorded as case precedent?

And if we do get the 4-3-2 does that still count?

It seems like that could possibly be the worst case scenario, it would mean that the written decision is not backed by a majority. Sounds almost like the court equivalent of a hanging chad.

I hope that we get a really good "Christmas in June" but as long as this step is in the right direction it will lead us down the path that takes us to incorporation and then some real leaps for californian kind.

A "4-3-2" does still count and is a win and that's great, however I don't think it is a great win. Keep in mind that when the court handled the Watergate tapes question some 35 years ago, much importance was attached to securing a unanimous decision. IIRC, it was 8-0 against the President and speculation was that convinced Nixon to turn over the tapes without delay. So if it is "4-3-2" the Brady types (and states like CA) will latch on to this weak decision, so the pro-gun types better be out in full force proclaiming 4-3-2 as a great victory.

[tombinghamthegreat]

I wonder how the mainstream media would present this ruling? I can picture the news stations will go on to say how our society will fall into choas if the 2nd amendment is declaired an individual right.

[PonchoTA]

I've 'heard' that the decision regarding the "right" to own and bear arms in D.C. is no longer in contention, they agree. However, it is only a matter of whether or not D.C. had a right to take them away in the first place.

D.C. gun ban WILL be lifted, it's only if the citizens will have to register their new guns, and what kind of guns they will be "allowed" to have.

:rolleyes:

[dfletcher]

I wonder how the mainstream media would present this ruling? I can picture the news stations will go on to say how our society will fall into choas if the 2nd amendment is declaired an individual right.

I think we must presume that given the opportunity, the mainstream media will minimize anything less than a strong majority decision in our favor. The Bradys will be out in force to either do damage control or swing the public perception that a plurality is no real victory.

[dfletcher]

That and the reaction of the two presidential candidates will be very interesting.

McCain's reaction should be pretty straightforward and I presume he'll use it (or he should) to remind people he's progun "Always have been - blah, blah, blah". Obama's song & dance will be interesting to see. He's on record as supporting the DC ban, I expect he'll minimize the ruling as in "Well, I've always supported the 2nd Amendment so this ruling is in line with my overall position". And of course the media won't press him on the point.

[JeffM]

I've got the day off tomorrow.

I plan on printing the decision as soon as it's available and sitting at the local coffee shop with a nice cigar for the morning to go over it.

[trashman]

If all goes as we anticipate, I might have a hard time explaining at tomorrow's weekly management meeting why I am grinning like a bandit.

As a former DC resident I am looking forward to the outcome one way or another.

--Neill

[FreshTapCoke]

I'm not usually an early riser, but somehow I think I'll manage to wake up before 7 tomorrow.

[SanSacto]

So everybody is waking up at 7 am.........is it even for sure that they are going to rule on this tomorrow morning?

[EMT007]

^ No, but if they do, no one wants to miss the posting frenzy that will begin on Calguns at 0701... it would also suck a bit to have to catch up on the 200+ page threads :43:

[spsellars]

So everybody is waking up at 7 am.........is it even for sure that they are going to rule on this tomorrow morning?

Nope, not for sure. They have 10 decisions left, and they aren't all going to happen tomorrow, so a Wednesday or Thursday session is likely to be held.

It seems that people in the know agree that tomorrow is most likely though.

[rue]

So... what does it all mean if they rule it's an individual right? Is someone going to sue the state of CA. to get rid of the BS laws here?

[M. Sage]

Not all the justices have to rule that the 2A is an individual right, only a majority.

People are going to sue.

[Piper]

I'll be up before 0700, but only because I have to be somewhere by 0800. I look forward to a positive decision in Heller, but it can wait until I fire up the computer.

[hoffmang]

A 4-3-2 would work out this way legally. It would be 7-2 that the Second Amendment is an individual right and that DC's ban as well as the trigger lock provisions on long arms violates that right. Where the disagreement between the 4 and the 3 might come is whether they talk about incorporation and whether they endorse strict scrutiny ala the 1A or just a non explained scrutiny like that used in Lawrence v. Texas.

Much of the above is wrote speculation. It is very clear that we have 5 or more votes for the correct interpretation of the Second and that DC's ban is toast.

-Gene

[jacques]

Can't wait to hear about this. The suspense is killing me.

[blackrazor]

That Scalia is most likely writing makes me think it slightly harder for him to get a 6-3 or 7-2. That said, predicting how majorities stacked this term has been very hard. What I was speculating about above would be:

Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy for "what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand."

Roberts, Ginsburg, and Breyer for overturning but some restrictions ok.

Souter and Stevens for the Brady Campaign....

-Gene

Gene, Gene, Gene. Still holding out hope for good old Ginsburg, I see? There's no way that Roberts and Ginsburg are going to be on the same page on this one. I don't buy the 4-3-2 bit, I'm predicting 5-4, with the 5 going for "which part of shall not be infringed to you not understand", and the other 4 (Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens & Souter) riding the Brady Campaign bus. You heard it here first y'all. Nonetheless, I'm going to have trouble sleeping tonight!

P.S. On Saturday I was informed that I won my Trial by Declartion against the city of Santa Monica, my traffic ticket was dismissed. I take this as a good omen for us all.

[Blackflag]

All,

A decision is likely in Heller tomorrow morning. It also is looking like Scalia is writing the lead opinion.

Why is it likely? And how do you know Scalia is writing it?

I doubt if we'll see the opinion this term, and I'm not aware of any way to know who's writing it.

[RomanDad]

Why is it likely? And how do you know Scalia is writing it?

I doubt if we'll see the opinion this term, and I'm not aware of any way to know who's writing it.

We will without a doubt see the opinion this term- The "term" doesn't end until they've ruled on all the cases before them, and Heller is one of the cases before them.

The speculation that it is Scalia is based on the fact that he hasn't written any opinions for the March Session when Heller was heard, and that its a HISTORICAL case that has his name all over it. He is the most senior member of the conservative side of the Court, thus assuming he and Stevens (the most senior member of the Court) would disagree on this case, Scalia would be the most likely to get "dibs" on the opinion if he were in the majority and wanted it.

No way of course to be sure what it is until we get it and read it.... Between this and the heat, I know Im in for a restless night.


One thing to keep in mind guys- The initial media reports on what a Supreme Court case MEANS are often WRONG... Ive seen reporters breathlessly try to get a headline out on a big case, only to report the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the Court actually ruled.... And this is going to be a BIG ONE, so there will be a race to get the news out first....

[Harrison_Bergeron]

This could likely be the first positive historical event I have been alive for, or it could be the second tragic one. I can't wait until tomorrow.

[Blackflag]

We will without a doubt see the opinion this term- The "term" doesn't end until they've ruled on all the cases before them, and Heller is one of the cases before them.


One thing to keep in mind guys- The initial media reports on what a Supreme Court case MEANS are often WRONG... Ive seen reporters breathlessly try to get a headline out on a big case, only to report the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the Court actually ruled....

The beginning of the term is set by statute, but not the end...so there is nothing preventing them from taking a case into the next term.

I couldn't agree more with your last thought. That is so true.

[Blackflag]

or it could be the second tragic one.

When they cancelled 24 last season?

[BLFD1]

I'll be up and logged on! :D

[hoffmang]

Gene, Gene, Gene. Still holding out hope for good old Ginsburg, I see? There's no way that Roberts and Ginsburg are going to be on the same page on this one. I don't buy the 4-3-2 bit, I'm predicting 5-4, with the 5 going for "which part of shall not be infringed to you not understand", and the other 4 (Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens & Souter) riding the Brady Campaign bus. You heard it here first y'all. Nonetheless, I'm going to have trouble sleeping tonight!

4-3-2 comes from Scalia writing the "majority" opinion. I tend to agree with other commentators that that mildly tips the weather forecast to a plurality opinion. If it's plural I am very confident that Ginsburg goes our side. If it's the 5-4 configuration and very strong then I could see Ginsburg on the wrong side. However, I think that only three Justices are strongly skeptical on the other side - Stevens, Souter, and Breyer.

-Gene

[Shane916]

Interesting side note: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy was born in Sacramento :)

[tiki]

Tick Tock, Tick Tock. It's 4:15 am. I'm up and I'm waiting. I took the day off for this but I am prepared to go in and move my vacation day to Wed. or Thursday. I really hope we get good news.

[DrunkSkunk]

lmao

you can't be serious that you are so anxious that you can't sleep?

lmao

[hitman13]

im sitting here in iraq waiting away for the decision!!

[moulton]

Im up......I slept about 2 hours last night just thinking about heller.....it had better be today hoffmang :p

[ptoguy2002]

Like a kid on Christmas eve, can't sleep.

[.223]

Live Coverage. (http://www.coveritlive.com/index.php?option=com_altcaster&task=siteviewaltcast&altcast_code=909aaea565)

[hitman13]

if you think the anticipation is bad now, wait until next week if it doesnt happen today!!!!!!!!!!!

[hill billy]

Doesn't look like it will be today according to the live blog. Unless I'm reading it wrong, which is a distinct possibility.

[Mikeb]

Two weeks

Mike

[Caanon]

Doesn't look like it will be today according to the live blog. Unless I'm reading it wrong, which is a distinct possibility.

I think you are, as did I, the list of seven cases they started with I guess are future cases they will hear, the opinions they are releasing have different names.

Edit: Or not.

[hitman13]

nope, nothign today

[Pvt. Cowboy]

Rothgery is the last opinion of the day.

[hill billy]

It's now saying that Rothgery is the last opinion for today.No mention of Heller.

[tiki]

I think you are, as did I, the list of seven cases they started with I guess are future cases they will hear, the opinions they are releasing have different names.

Edit: Or not.

I guess that's it for today. DAMN!

10:11 Ben Winograd - Rothgery is the last opinion of the day.


10:12 Ben Winograd - Today's opinion by Justice Breyer in Sprint Communications v. APCC Services (07-552) is now available here.

10:12 Tom Goldstein - The only opinion remaining from the March sitting is Heller. The only Justice without a majority opinion from that sitting is Justice Scalia.

[Pvt. Cowboy]

The only opinion remaining from the March sitting is Heller. The only Justice without a majority opinion from that sitting is Justice Scalia.

[moulton]

Tom Goldstein - The only opinion remaining from the March sitting is Heller. The only Justice without a majority opinion from that sitting is Justice Scalia.
:eek::TFH:

[Pvt. Cowboy]

The Court has announced that it will release opinions against at 10am Wednesday. Because seven opinions remain, it will almost certainly have one additional day. Based on past practice, that day likely will be Thursday.

[RomanDad]

Next day is Wednesday.

[Tyrius]

Wait, what does it mean for him to be without a majority opinion? That doesn't mean there was a 4-4-1 split with Scalia all by himself, does it?

[hill billy]

Dammit!!!!

[tiki]

Wait, what does it mean for him to be without a majority opinion? That doesn't mean there was a 4-4-1 split with Scalia all by himself, does it?

It means he hasn't written one. So, he's most likely writing the one for Heller.

[Stubby]

Boy oh, boy...They sure know how to keep a person waiting:banghead:

[Kestryll]

10:04 Ben Winograd - The Court granted certiorari this morning in the following 7 cases:
Pacific Bell Telephone Co., dba AT&T California v. linkLine Communications (07-512)

AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen (07-543)

Ministry of Defense and Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Elahi (07-615)

Cone v. Bell (07-1114)

Winter, et al. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al. (07-1239)

Harbison v. Bell (07-8521)

Arizona v. Johnson (07-1122)


10:11 Ben Winograd - Rothgery is the last opinion of the day.


10:12 Tom Goldstein - The only opinion remaining from the March sitting is Heller. The only Justice without a majority opinion from that sitting is Justice Scalia.


10:14 Tom Goldstein - The Court has announced that it will release opinions against at 10am Wednesday. Because seven opinions remain, it will almost certainly have one additional day. Based on past practice, that day likely will be Thursday.

[hitman13]

or a 4-1-4??

[milsurpshooter]

@#$%?## it.

[Pvt. Cowboy]

Wait, what does it mean for him to be without a majority opinion? That doesn't mean there was a 4-4-1 split with Scalia all by himself, does it?

It means that Scalia hasn't written a majority opinion for the court during the time period in March when DC v. Heller was heard.

They speculate that it means he's writing the majority brief (or plurality brief) for Heller.

[Tyrius]

@ tiki and Pvt. Cowboy: Ah, ok. Thanks for clearing up my confusion.

[Kestryll]

10:20 Ben Winograd - To recap, the Court issued opinions in three cases today and granted certiorari in seven cases for next term.

Today's opinion by Justice Breyer in Sprint Communications v. APCC Services (07-552) is now available here.

Today's opinion by Justice Ginsburg in Greenlaw v. United States (07-330) is now available here.

Today's opinion by Justice Breyer in Sprint Communications v. APCC Services (07-552) is now available here.

The Court also granted certiorari in the following cases:

Pacific Bell Telephone Co., dba AT&T California v. linkLine Communications (07-512) (filings available here).

AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen (07-543) (filings available here).

Ministry of Defense and Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Elahi (07-615) (filings available here).

Cone v. Bell (07-1114) (filings available here).

Arizona v. Johnson (07-1122) (filings available shortly).

Winter, et al. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al. (07-1239) (filings available here).

Harbison v. Bell (07-8521) (filings available here).

DARN IT!!!!!!

[USN CHIEF]

It already sounds like bad news.. I hope that I am wrong.

[JeffM]

Well crap. That kinda ruined my day :(

[bruss01]

It was obvious from the oral arguments that Scalia is the "gunnie" on the Court right now. Much speculation was that Roberts would write the majority decision himself because it is such a high profile case dealing with a fundamental right, however I can see him handing it off to Scalia if he wants to make sure it is written with a knowledge of the subject matter (guns) that won't make the brief sound stupid. In other words, he may think Scalia is the best man for the job based on his background and knowledge of firearms. Since this is likely the most important document Scalia will ever author, I can understand him taking time to do the job right and make sure it is perfect and that he can get buy-in from the highest number of justices in order to firmly cement the decision.

It will be worth waiting for IMHO.

[moulton]

It already sounds like bad news.. I hope that I am wrong.

explain please :confused:

[hill billy]

It will be worth waiting for IMHO.
I truly hope you're right.

[gunsnrovers]

A post from last Thursday on the blog had this to say:

-----------------

March. Two opinions remain: Rothgery v. Gillespie and the case many of our readers our waiting eagerly for, DC v. Heller. Two justices have not yet written in the sitting: Souter and Scalia. As both of them have only written five total opinions thus far, it seems quite likely that these two are the outstanding authors, barring some sort of vote-switching. Based on the tenor of oral argument, it is widely expected that the individual rights view of the Second Amendment will prevail in the guns case, which means that it appears that Justice Scalia may well be writing the opinion for the majority, leaving Rothgery to Justice Souter. It remains a possibility, of course, that if Justice Scalia is the author, his opinion commands only a plurality.

[DeeL2003]

Just read this SCOTUSblog post from last week:

"The timing of opinions. There is only one decision day next week on the Court’s official calendar: Monday, June 23, when the Court’s public session will begin at 10 am eastern. However, as the Court has done for the past two weeks, it’s certain that the Court will sit on one or more additional days later in the week. Based on past practice, if the Court holds one additional opinion day, it will likely be the Thursday (June 26) as it did last Term. If it holds two additional opinion days (which is more likely, given that ten opinions remain), the added days will likely be Wednesday (June 25) and Thursday (as it did in the 2005 Term).

(Of course, the Court isn’t required to finish by June 26, but it has concluded the Term before July every year for the last decade. Monday June 30 is also a possible last day, but is unlikely because the Court internally plans on finishing each Term during the fourth week of June.)"

So an opinion is most likely going to be released Wed or Thurs.? Because a term has been concluded before July for the past decade. So just 2-3 more days instead of 2 weeks?

[USN CHIEF]

explain please :confused:

They are taking too long on a simple easy decision. :mad: I just have a bad feeling that things will not go our way...:mad: I hope that I am wrong.

[gd-bh]

so, is" 2-3 days" the new "two weeks"? ;)

[Liberty1]

They are taking too long on a simple easy decision. :mad: I just have a bad feeling that things will not go our way...:mad: I hope that I am wrong.

No. It just means that after waiting for 74 years we now have to wait TWO DAYS more at least.

[RomanDad]

A couple of notes....


Dont read ANYTHING into the timing of releasing the case... It really means nothing... Its a big case. And the Court has always recognized a sense for the dramatic.

Second- Pluralities and concurrences... For those who dont really understand what all this talk is about, I suggest you take a quick look at Rothergie case that was released today. A copy can be found here:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-440.pdf

You'll notice the first opinion is signed by 8 Justices. Thats a MAJORITY. There is then a Concurrence signed by 2 Justices (who also signed the majority) and ANOTHER concurrence signed by 3 justices (including the two who signed the first concurrence- again, all of whom signed the majority) AND a DISSENT by one lone justice.

So the "Count" instead of a neat 5-4 or 4-1-4 (or any other permutation that adds up to 9) is 8-2-3-1 (which adds up to 14).

This is fairly typical and often boils down to citing a specific point of law just to distinguish it from the rest of the opinion...

A plurality (which either concurrence would have been if we didnt have the Majority decision) is basically a ruling that decides the case, but is much weakened in its applicability in future cases. Its not totally worthless, as lower courts routinely cite dissents and concurrences in their reasoning... But they dont have the weight of that majority opinion.... Just the same- True pluralities are rare, and they will try to avoid one in this case if at all possible...

Again, at this point trying to read tea leaves, is pretty futile...

I understand why people think Scalia is writing the opinion, but Ive yet to hear why some seem to be predicting that that somehow bodes a plurality? Scalia writes LOTS of majority opinions.... Hes HIGHLY regarded by his colleagues. The politics and media spin about the Justices that WE hear all the time, has ZERO impact on the Justices themselves... In fact, Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsberg are very close friends and have been for years. Hes the likely guy to write this opinion just because of its importance, his seniority and the regard the others hold for him.... Hes also a hunter...

Lets just take a breath, relax, and WAIT to see what they write... We'll have it soon enough

[WokMaster1]

10:04 Ben Winograd - The Court granted certiorari this morning in the following 7 cases:
Pacific Bell Telephone Co., dba AT&T California v. linkLine Communications (07-512)

AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen (07-543)

Ministry of Defense and Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Elahi (07-615)
Cone v. Bell (07-1114)

Winter, et al. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al. (07-1239)

Harbison v. Bell (07-8521)

Arizona v. Johnson (07-1122)


10:11 Ben Winograd - Rothgery is the last opinion of the day.


10:12 Tom Goldstein - The only opinion remaining from the March sitting is Heller. The only Justice without a majority opinion from that sitting is Justice Scalia.


10:14 Tom Goldstein - The Court has announced that it will release opinions against at 10am Wednesday. Because seven opinions remain, it will almost certainly have one additional day. Based on past practice, that day likely will be Thursday.



WTF?:confused:

Why is this even in SC?

[Liberty1]

WTF?:confused:

Why is this even in SC?

Your homework: read the decision and let us know:p

[wilit]

D'oh. Maybe they're waiting until the 4th of July to release Heller. You know, a kind of gift to us on Independence Day. :D

[RomanDad]

WTF?:confused:

Why is this even in SC?

Somebody sued Iran.