Advice To Pro 2A Lawyers : How Not To Lose

[bruss01]

Here's a recent SCOTUS case that reflects back to NYSRPA.

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/08/974800755/roberts-accuses-supreme-court-justices-of-turning-judges-into-advice-columnists

Couple of interesting things here.

1. - Because the plaintifs in this case asked for nominal damages, SCOTUS ruled that the backtracking by the defendent did not moot the case. This is the flip side of what happened in NYSRPA, where SCOTUS ruled the case moot after backtracking by NYC, because the lawsuit claimed no monetary damages.

2. - Justice Roberts was the lone holdout, finding himself on the wee side of an 8-1 decision. No doubt, because he doesn't want to deal with a NYSRPA-type situation where mooting for lack of damages isn't applicable.

So 2A lawyers - always ask for damages! You don't have to win on the damages in order for claiming them to be of benefit. If NYSRPA had claimed damages, even if ultimately damages were not awarded, it would at least have gotten the the case a hearing at SCOTUS and possibly a favorable decision.

Think about it.

In my opinion, I see this as evidence that Roberts is deciding, case-by-case, on desired outcomes and then pushing some kind of convoluted legal reasoning to produce the desired end... rather than using the framework of established sound jurisprudence and clear precedent. In this case, he wanted to depart from SCOTUS's very own precedent set just a year earlier.

[IVC]

Similar to having institutional plaintiffs - without them, a CCW case can be mooted by issuing the licenses to the individual plaintiffs.

[curtisfong]

Courts hostile to the right routinely decide, case-by-case, on desired outcomes and then pushing some kind of convoluted legal reasoning to produce the desired end... rather than using the framework of established sound jurisprudence and clear precedent.

Fixed it for you.

[Citadelgrad87]

Here's a recent SCOTUS case that reflects back to NYSRPA.

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/08/974800755/roberts-accuses-supreme-court-justices-of-turning-judges-into-advice-columnists

Couple of interesting things here.

1. - Because the plaintifs in this case asked for nominal damages, SCOTUS ruled that the backtracking by the defendent did not moot the case. This is the flip side of what happened in NYSRPA, where SCOTUS ruled the case moot after backtracking by NYC, because the lawsuit claimed no monetary damages.

2. - Justice Roberts was the lone holdout, finding himself on the wee side of an 8-1 decision. No doubt, because he doesn't want to deal with a NYSRPA-type situation where mooting for lack of damages isn't applicable.

So 2A lawyers - always ask for damages! You don't have to win on the damages in order for claiming them to be of benefit. If NYSRPA had claimed damages, even if ultimately damages were not awarded, it would at least have gotten the the case a hearing at SCOTUS and possibly a favorable decision.

Think about it.

In my opinion, I see this as evidence that Roberts is deciding, case-by-case, on desired outcomes and then pushing some kind of convoluted legal reasoning to produce the desired end... rather than using the framework of established sound jurisprudence and clear precedent. In this case, he wanted to depart from SCOTUS's very own precedent set just a year earlier.

There is already a long recognized concept of "capable of repetition but evading review". An example is Roe v Wade, where the pregnancy was over before the SCOTUS could hear the case.

This concept applies to vitiate "mootness" when a legislative body changes the appealed law to avoid SCOTUS review, and I argued it when this went down.

Not my article, but

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/08/s...e%20litigation.