Rogers Cert Petition (NJ Concealed carry) Response due 2019 April 19

[Jimi Jah]

By now Roberts should have lined up a number of these gun cases to be heard. He has not, for personal reasons.

There are no indications that this will change.

[Imperius]

So Feb 22nd, 2019 is do or die for national CCW/open carry huh....

trying not to get my hopes up, but damn I'm on the edge of my seat. Just to be clear, the only thing this will change is the good cause requirement (Similar to Peruta), correct? And even with open carry, depending on the decision you may still have to get a permit to open carry?

To clarify, you'll still have to get a permit through your Sheriffs dept of chief of police but it will be "shall issue," correct?

[ShadowGuy]

Originally Posted by Imperius

So Feb 22nd, 2019 is do or die for national CCW/open carry huh....

trying not to get my hopes up, but damn I'm on the edge of my seat. Just to be clear, the only thing this will change is the good cause requirement (Similar to Peruta), correct? And even with open carry, depending on the decision you may still have to get a permit to open carry?

To clarify, you'll still have to get a permit through your Sheriffs dept of chief of police but it will be "shall issue," correct?

Not exactly. It could be and probably will be relisted a couple times if not denied.
I do share your excitement between Rogers, NY, and Pena, there are a lot of irons in the fire.

[BryMan92]

Maybe they will take it due to the Circuit split with DC?

[Kukuforguns]

Originally Posted by Prwterbird

Not exactly. It could be and probably will be relisted a couple times if not denied.
I do share your excitement between Rogers, NY, and Pena, there are a lot of irons in the fire.

N.J. declined the opportunity to respond to the petition for certiorari. If SCOTUS has any interest in this case, the most likely outcome of the conference is that SCOTUS will ask N.J. to file a response to the petition.

In other words, don't expect Christmas morning on the 22d. If SCOTUS actually does grant cert. without a response from N.J., that would be "significant."

[press1280]

Originally Posted by Kukuforguns

N.J. declined the opportunity to respond to the petition for certiorari. If SCOTUS has any interest in this case, the most likely outcome of the conference is that SCOTUS will ask N.J. to file a response to the petition.

In other words, don't expect Christmas morning on the 22d. If SCOTUS actually does grant cert. without a response from N.J., that would be "significant."

I expect SCOTUS to order a response, perhaps right after the conference.

If they took the case without a response, it would signal (at least to me) that they wanted this badly and NJ's law is DOA.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by Imperius

So Feb 22nd, 2019 is do or die for national CCW/open carry huh....

trying not to get my hopes up, but damn I'm on the edge of my seat. Just to be clear, the only thing this will change is the good cause requirement (Similar to Peruta), correct? And even with open carry, depending on the decision you may still have to get a permit to open carry?

To clarify, you'll still have to get a permit through your Sheriffs dept of chief of police but it will be "shall issue," correct?

That's all the plaintiffs asked for so basically yes.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by menancyandsam

What if...
An opening is created for a new justice & Hardiman is nominated & confirmed. Would he have to recuse himself from Rogers because of his dissent in Drake.

He isn't tied to any parties in this case (I'm assuming), so just because he ruled on a similar case years ago doesn't disqualify him.
If he takes RBG's seat on SCOTUS then NJ may be tempted to quit outright.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by press1280

I expect SCOTUS to order a response, perhaps right after the conference.

If they took the case without a response, it would signal (at least to me) that they wanted this badly and NJ's law is DOA.

Yeah, baby!

Supreme Court signals interest in New Jersey concealed carry challenge

<snip>

The nation’s high court on Tuesday took a step to show they aim to weigh the merits of a challenge to New Jersey’s strict “may issue” concealed carry laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court this week asked New Jersey officials to respond to a petition filed by a state resident allied with gun rights advocates. The case, that of Thomas Rogers and the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, had been turned away by the state’s own supreme court, setting the stage for the current appeal to the federal bench.

<snip>

Rogers, according to court documents, meets all the guidelines under New Jersey state law to obtain a permit — but cannot show evidence of a direct or specific threat to his life. In other words, even though he was threatened and robbed at gunpoint in the past and currently manages an ATM business, a job that requires him to service machines in high-crime areas, police say he does not have a justifiable need to carry a gun.

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, joined with attorneys general and governors from 22 other states, are now on his side, and have filed a supporting amicus brief last month urging the high court to take up his case.

The response from New Jersey, who had previously ignored the appeal, has to be submitted to the court by March 21.

More at:
https://www.guns.com/news/2019/02/20...arry-challenge

[BryMan92]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Yeah, baby!

More at:
https://www.guns.com/news/2019/02/20...arry-challenge

What if nothing is submitted?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by BryMan92

What if nothing is submitted?

SCOTUS has not dismissed this case out of hand. They have not denied cert, yet. They've heard our side's explanation of why they should take this case. They're asking the state to explain why they should not take this case. If the state chooses not to try to persuade SCOTUS not to take it, so much the better: that makes it more likely they will take it.

If SCOTUS takes it, then comes briefs from both sides on why they should shoot down the GC (or whatever it's called in NJ) requirement (our side) and why they shouldn't (state's side).

Things will be getting very interesting between 2020 Jan 01 and 2020 July 01 if SCOTUS also takes this case and/or Gould.

[OleCuss]

I think that a failure to submit would result in effectively losing the case.

If the one petitioning for cert did not respond to a request for additional briefing I'd expect the cert to be denied.

If the party which prevailed at the lower court declined to submit a requested briefing I'd think the odds of a summary reversal would go way up? Granting of cert would seem very likely if there weren't a summary reversal.

But IANAL and I could be very wrong about this. But I'd bet pretty strongly that they'll respond to the request.

[flygrimm]

What if NJ provided the plaintiff with the permit? Would that end the case? If so it seems it would be in the best interests of the Commie states to do so. Otherwise they are taking a HUGE risk letting this get to a moderately conservative SC. Though I don't trust Roberts as far as I can pick up an aircraft carrier and throw it.

Stuart

[LVSox]

Originally Posted by BryMan92

What if nothing is submitted?

This is a hypothetical not worth the time of contemplating. NJ will submit a response.

In the absolute fantasyland in which it didn't, the Court would still consider the petition, and it would still require 4 votes for a grant, and in the absence of 5 votes for a summary reversal (also fantasyland), 4 votes would still result in full briefing and argument, and fewer than four would still result in a denial of cert.

[LVSox]

Originally Posted by flygrimm

What if NJ provided the plaintiff with the permit? Would that end the case?
Stuart

Extremely unlikely as a technical matter. Unless NJ amended its laws to eliminate the "justifiable need" requirement, that move would seemingly present a typical case of "likely to reoccur while evading review" that permits a court to consider a case that would otherwise be mooted.

[flygrimm]

Originally Posted by LVSox

Extremely unlikely as a technical matter. Unless NJ amended its laws to eliminate the "justifiable need" requirement, that move would seemingly present a typical case of "likely to reoccur while evading review" that permits a court to consider a case that would otherwise be mooted.

Thank You.

Stuart

[gunuser17]

It is not that unusual for the winner in the lower appellate court not to file a response to the petition for cert. at the US Supreme Court. There certainly is no direct prejudice to a party that decides not to oppose the peition at that stage and, I suspect, that has very little or no bearing on whether the Supreme Court decides to take the case. A party may not file an opposition brief to a petition for cert. for several reasons that may revolve around saving money and showing confidence in the lower court opinion. If you don't think there is much of a chance that cert will be granted, why spend the money opposing the petition. If you believe it will be granted, you could try to stop that by replying to the petition or just save your money and put it into your opposition once cert is granted. The reasons that cert. should or should not be granted may not have a lot to do with the real underlying issues - those issues will be briefed once cert is granted. For instance, there may be a perceived split between circuits or other issues that warrant an opposition but if the main argument is just that the lower court got the law wrong, then you may decide to wait and put your time and money into the brief after cert is granted. Given that nearly all petitions for cert. to the US Supreme Court are denied, the odds are greatly in the lower court winner's corner.

[LVSox]

Originally Posted by gunuser17

It is not that unusual for the winner in the lower appellate court not to file a response to the petition for cert. at the US Supreme Court. There certainly is no direct prejudice to a party that decides not to oppose the peition at that stage and, I suspect, that has very little or no bearing on whether the Supreme Court decides to take the case. A party may not file an opposition brief to a petition for cert. for several reasons that may revolve around saving money and showing confidence in the lower court opinion. If you don't think there is much of a chance that cert will be granted, why spend the money opposing the petition. If you believe it will be granted, you could try to stop that by replying to the petition or just save your money and put it into your opposition once cert is granted. The reasons that cert. should or should not be granted may not have a lot to do with the real underlying issues - those issues will be briefed once cert is granted. For instance, there may be a perceived split between circuits or other issues that warrant an opposition but if the main argument is just that the lower court got the law wrong, then you may decide to wait and put your time and money into the brief after cert is granted. Given that nearly all petitions for cert. to the US Supreme Court are denied, the odds are greatly in the lower court winner's corner.

All of that is 100% true with respect to initially responding or not. It’s also 100% irrelevant once the Court requests a response, at which point there is a 100% chance that when the respondent is a state or federal government, it files a response. For all other respondents, it’s only about 99.9%.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by gunuser17

It is not that unusual for the winner in the lower appellate court not to file a response to the petition for cert. at the US Supreme Court. There certainly is no direct prejudice to a party that decides not to oppose the peition at that stage and, I suspect, that has very little or no bearing on whether the Supreme Court decides to take the case. A party may not file an opposition brief to a petition for cert. for several reasons that may revolve around saving money and showing confidence in the lower court opinion. If you don't think there is much of a chance that cert will be granted, why spend the money opposing the petition. If you believe it will be granted, you could try to stop that by replying to the petition or just save your money and put it into your opposition once cert is granted. The reasons that cert. should or should not be granted may not have a lot to do with the real underlying issues - those issues will be briefed once cert is granted. For instance, there may be a perceived split between circuits or other issues that warrant an opposition but if the main argument is just that the lower court got the law wrong, then you may decide to wait and put your time and money into the brief after cert is granted. Given that nearly all petitions for cert. to the US Supreme Court are denied, the odds are greatly in the lower court winner's corner.

Sure it happens, but how often does it happen when there's an unavoidable circuit split in play?

[gunuser17]

One study several years ago found that when the Supreme Court requests a response to a petition for cert, the likelihood of granting cert was 9 times greater than if no request was made. Unfortunately, where a request for a response was made, cert was still only granted in slightly less than 10% of those cases. Also, as I believe is still the case, all is takes is for one Justice to request a response for the Clerk to enter the order calling for the response. http://www.georgemasonlawreview.org/...2_Wachtell.pdf

[LVSox]

Originally Posted by gunuser17

One study several years ago found that when the Supreme Court requests a response to a petition for cert, the likelihood of granting cert was 9 times greater than if no request was made. Unfortunately, where a request for a response was made, cert was still only granted in slightly less than 10% of those cases. Also, as I believe is still the case, all is takes is for one Justice to request a response for the Clerk to enter the order calling for the response. http://www.georgemasonlawreview.org/...2_Wachtell.pdf

But almost 17% in paid cases, such as this one.

[Phiremin]

So, how does this work?
2/6 - distributed for conference of 2/22
2/19 - response requested due 3/21

The response is due after the conference.
Will the conference be delayed? Will it just keep getting realisted? Will they just decide without the response?

[Phiremin]

Originally Posted by LVSox

But almost 17% in paid cases, such as this one.

Well, with Kennedy out and Kavanaugh in, we do know they have the votes needed for cert.
So, I think it’s more a question of “is this the right vehicle” and “are they willing to take 2 gun control cases at the same time”.

[ShadowGuy]

Originally Posted by Phiremin

So, how does this work?
2/6 - distributed for conference of 2/22
2/19 - response requested due 3/21

The response is due after the conference.
Will the conference be delayed? Will it just keep getting realisted? Will they just decide without the response?

I think they can either relist or hold. We may not see any updates or even a relist until after the response is received.

[Kukuforguns]

Rogers is not listed on the Court's list of orders issued in connection with the 2/22 conference (ie, it was neither denied nor relisted). I have not been able to find the Court's procedures regarding Calls for Response, but it appears that Rogers will be recirculated for a future conference after the response is filed.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Phiremin

So, how does this work?
2/6 - distributed for conference of 2/22
2/19 - response requested due 3/21

The response is due after the conference.
Will the conference be delayed? Will it just keep getting realisted? Will they just decide without the response?

I am assuming SCOTUS won't do anything with it until a conference sometime after the Response is received, so unless they file it early, we've got 3 1/2 weeks of waiting. My guess is between 2/6 (when they posted it was to be discussed on the 2/22) and 2/19 (when they requested the Response), they looked it over briefly, realized they want to have a Response before deciding re. cert and so requested it. I assume the 2/22 date for conference was cancelled when they asked for a Response. The initial conference date will be rescheduled later.

[BryMan92]

FIFY. :P

Originally Posted by Paladin

I am assuming SCOTUS won't do anything with it until a conference sometime after the Response is received, so unless they file it early, we've got 3 1/2 weeks of waiting. My guess is between 2/6 (when they posted it was to be discussed on the 2/22) and 2/19 (when they requested the Response), they looked it over briefly, realized they want to have a Response before DENYING re. cert and so requested it. I assume the 2/22 date for conference was cancelled when they asked for a Response. The initial conference date will be rescheduled later.

[LVSox]

Originally Posted by Phiremin

So, how does this work?
2/6 - distributed for conference of 2/22
2/19 - response requested due 3/21

The response is due after the conference.
Will the conference be delayed? Will it just keep getting realisted? Will they just decide without the response?

When a response is requested, the initial conference date is mooted.

Assuming the State doesn’t request an extension and files its response on March 21, the reply brief will be filed on or around April 4, and the case file will be distributed on April 10 for consideration at the April 26 conference.

[Paladin]

Feb 19 2019 Response Requested. (Due March 21, 2019)

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Paladin

So much for that....

The state wants a 30 day extension until April 19 to submit Response.

Mar 12 2019 Letter Request for Extension of Gurbir Grewal, et al. submitted.

From: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/18-824.html

Letter Request at:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...%203-12-19.pdf

[Kukuforguns]

The request for extension is granted. The state's response is due to be filed on April 19:

Mar 15 2019
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 19, 2019, for all respondents.

[press1280]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...t.%20Reply.pdf

Rogers' reply is in so briefing is complete. No conference date has been set as of yet but it should be soon; that is, unless SCOTUS decides to hold this until NYSRPA has been decided.

[Phiremin]

Distributed for conference of 5/23/2019.

Best case, of course, they take the case.
A not so bad outcome would be a quick denial with no comment as this would suggest they are looking at a broad outcome in NYSRPA v NYC.
Worst case is a bunch of re-listings a dissent from denial, as it would say SCOTUS isn’t going to clarify a right to carry unless we get another conservative justice.

[sarabellum]

Originally Posted by Phiremin

Distributed for conference of 5/23/2019.

Best case, of course, they take the case.
A not so bad outcome would be a quick denial with no comment as this would suggest they are looking at a broad outcome in NYSRPA v NYC.
Worst case is a bunch of re-listings a dissent from denial, as it would say SCOTUS isn’t going to clarify a right to carry unless we get another conservative justice.

The rule of 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_four There are 5 Republican appointees to the S.Ct., who will purportedly vote for certiorari and rule in favor of broad armament.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Phiremin

Distributed for conference of 5/23/2019.

The first day for orders after the 23rd is the 28th, at ~6:30 - 6:45 am our time.

[Phiremin]

Originally Posted by sarabellum

The rule of 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_four There are 5 Republican appointees to the S.Ct., who will purportedly vote for certiorari and rule in favor of broad armament.

Yes, 4 for cert, but 5 needed for a majority opinion.
There have been 5 republican appointees for years, but no 2A cases taken. This suggests both Roberts and Kennedy were “no’s”. Many have argued that these were “strategic denials” meant to protect the 2A if Kennedy joined with the liberals, but I don’t buy that. The impassioned dissents from denial we have seen suggest to me that we simply couldn’t get to 4 votes.
So, while they have 4 votes today for cert, it’s not totally clear they have a 5th vote for a majority opinion on anything really “disruptive” like “must issue carry”.
I think Roberts is only willing to go so far.
I guess we’ll soon find out.

[sarabellum]

Originally Posted by Phiremin

Yes, 4 for cert, but 5 needed for a majority opinion.
There have been 5 republican appointees for years, but no 2A cases taken. This suggests both Roberts and Kennedy were “no’s”. Many have argued that these were “strategic denials” meant to protect the 2A if Kennedy joined with the liberals, but I don’t buy that. The impassioned dissents from denial we have seen suggest to me that we simply couldn’t get to 4 votes.
So, while they have 4 votes today for cert, it’s not totally clear they have a 5th vote for a majority opinion on anything really “disruptive” like “must issue carry”.
I think Roberts is only willing to go so far.
I guess we’ll soon find out.

That is a good insight and cause for skepticism.

[abinsinia]

I think this case will get held similar to the Pena case, and the Mance case. I'm very curios to see what happens.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Paladin

The first day for orders after the 23rd is the 28th, at ~6:30 - 6:45 am our time.

1 week to go!

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by Paladin

1 week to go!

If it gets held we should know earlier then that. It just won't get relisted, or basically nothing will happen. It will go into limbo land.