Tea Leaf Reading on St. Benitez Timing????

[Bhobbs]

There are still courts not following Bruen and going with interst balancing. There’s no guarantee the 9th won’t use interest balancing to overturn Benitez. Until SCOTUS actively defends its rulings, they are entirely optional.

[gixxnrocket]

IANAL, I'm just trying to follow along the best I can.

In synopsis here is my understood major events:
St. Benitez issued his original ruling.
CA9 Panel Affirmed
CA9 Rejected
Appealed to SCOTUS
SCOTUS (in light of Bruen; THT) Remanded back to CA9

Why / how did the case get thrown from CA9 back to St. Benitez? His original ruling is inline with Bruen. SCOTUS was telling CA9 their ruling is wrong. I'm confused and frustrated that CA9 told Benitez to "Fix" his original ruling.

Is there some sort of procedural thing I'm missing?

[Foothills]

IANAL, I'm just trying to follow along the best I can.

In synopsis here is my understood major events:
St. Benitez issued his original ruling.
CA9 Panel Affirmed
CA9 Rejected
Appealed to SCOTUS
SCOTUS (in light of Bruen; THT) Remanded back to CA9

Why / how did the case get thrown from CA9 back to St. Benitez? His original ruling is inline with Bruen. SCOTUS was telling CA9 their ruling is wrong. I'm confused and frustrated that CA9 told Benitez to "Fix" his original ruling.

Is there some sort of procedural thing I'm missing?

The question is who does the work of analyzing the historical analogues to the various firearms restrictions. They give it all back to Benitez and make him do the work on the front end.

It's kind of like raising a problem at work and offering a solution and they say, "Sounds good. Go ahead and do that."

[cxr]

Hey guys. Only 2 more weeks to go. Lol

[jcwatchdog]

I have a feeling tomorrow has to be it!

[michigander]

The question is who does the work of analyzing the historical analogues to the various firearms restrictions. They give it all back to Benitez and make him do the work on the front end.

It's kind of like raising a problem at work and offering a solution and they say, "Sounds good. Go ahead and do that."

If you listen to certain legal minds, it?s not even historical analogues. If weapons are in common use for legal purposes, they are protected.

[michigander]

IANAL, I'm just trying to follow along the best I can.

In synopsis here is my understood major events:
St. Benitez issued his original ruling.
CA9 Panel Affirmed
CA9 Rejected
Appealed to SCOTUS
SCOTUS (in light of Bruen; THT) Remanded back to CA9

Why / how did the case get thrown from CA9 back to St. Benitez? His original ruling is inline with Bruen. SCOTUS was telling CA9 their ruling is wrong. I'm confused and frustrated that CA9 told Benitez to "Fix" his original ruling.

Is there some sort of procedural thing I'm missing?

Only one case (Duncan) made it to SCOTUS.

It?s up to the 9th what they want to do with a case that is GVR?d. I think they were mostly going for delay. One might be able to argue that the state didn?t argue THT so they deserved a chance to make THT arguments, but it is certainly not required (see Bianchi case in the 4th circuit).

[Dvrjon]

Why / how did the case get thrown from CA9 back to St. Benitez? His original ruling is inline with Bruen. SCOTUS was telling CA9 their ruling is wrong. I'm confused and frustrated that CA9 told Benitez to "Fix" his original ruling.

Is there some sort of procedural thing I'm missing?

In Bruen, SCOTUS did not tell CA 9 that their rulings were wrong; they told everybody who used interest balancing that it was not a valid method of coming to a decision. This is analogous to Grade-School math where you had to show your work and if your process was wrong you failed even though you got the right answer.

(SCOTUS did find that the part of the NY licensing scheme which required a showing of cause for the license was unconstitutional.)

In rendering that limited decision, SCOTUS set aside the use of interest balancing in favor of THT analysis. Since the CA 9 decisions were all based on interest balancing, they were GVR?d to the inferior courts for review under THT. But SCOTUS didn?t make any determination on the validity or invalidity of the CA 9 decision. They used the wrong process so the outcome hasn?t been determined.

CA9 is a busy court, so there is some value to diverting remanded cases to the district for review as they are then inserted into the pipeline below CA9 and have to move forward for later docketing.

More importantly, since the arguments which were presented to CA 9 in the initial review were based on interest balancing, the lower court process needed to run the analysis through THT. (New cases also had to be re-briefed under the new template of THT.) Since Benitez had a number of decisions GVR?d, he required DOJ to do the historical analysis. When they did, Benitez then required DOJ to pick one example that best suited and illustrated their case.

The DOJ response focused on the need for a more nuanced (from SCOTUS in Bruen) view and disregarded the instruction.

So, not only is Benitez trying to draw a heavy line around the THT analysis and defining what is and is not analogous, he also needs to analyze and establish the concept of a nuanced approach to modern issues.

And he has to show his work.

[ritter]

^^^ great analysis/summary. Thanks.

[1911su16b870]

I am also hoping Judge Benitez will have sections in his pending decisions dealing with Heller " ban = not for common use" and Caetano (200,000)...and clarifying dangerous AND unusual.

[gixxnrocket]

Thanks for the regular Joe explanations it really helps understand the process!

[BAJ475]

I am also hoping Judge Benitez will have sections in his pending decisions dealing with Heller " ban = not for common use" and Caetano (200,000)...and clarifying dangerous AND unusual.

Yes, because there is no need for Bruen THT because you cannot rationally get beyond the Heller common use test. So technically, THT is not the relevant test but it can be used to reinforce the unconstitutionality of the AW ban based on the alternate Bruen analysis.

[SpudmanWP]

Unfortunately, I think it will take another SCOTUS ruling that specifically addresses the difference between a ban and its relation to the "common use test" (along with specific examples) and a regulation that needs the THT test.

[Dvrjon]

Unfortunately, I think it will take another SCOTUS ruling that specifically addresses the difference between a ban and its relation to the "common use test" (along with specific examples) and a regulation that needs the THT test.

The debates will continue because SCOTUS didn't address:
-Nuance
-Sensitive places
-Analogous

All are left to contemporary analysis and argument.

[gobler]

Well, another Friday and no opinion. Maybe sometime in May, we'll get an answer.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk