Rham Emanuel moving to moot Ezell v. Chicago

[OleCuss]

It looks like Rahm is just trying to get out of paying the bill.

A very weasly thing to do given that they deposed the witnesses so long to try and get SAF to drop the case.

If he is successful, that means the antis can bankrupt our civil rights movement just by passing enough laws that we have to challenge and then mooting them before they have to pay legal fees.

I hope that the judges don't fall for his dirty tricks.

Will that really work? Moot the case after the other side wins and hope not to pay? I thought that another entity (maybe the same Chicago in McDonald) tried that and the court slapped them around pretty good?

[wash]

This time they were probably tipped by a judge's aid and rescinded the range ban before the actual decision came down.

[OleCuss]

But isn't this just about the same sequencing as in McDonald (or maybe it was Heller)?

IIRC, (and I'd appreciate corrections), after either McDonald or Heller was remanded to the district court, Chicago or DC passed an ordinance fix that was supposed to comply with the SCOTUS remand and thus they claimed that the case was mooted and Gura didn't win a case and didn't deserve compensation.

The court seemed to question their general sanity and I think the argument quickly moved to how much Gura/SAF was due - not whether or not they should be paid.

In this particular case it would not surprise me if the court were somewhat leery of the claims by Chicago.

Consider:

1. McDonald, et al, sued up through SCOTUS and got a fundamental ruling from SCOTUS.

2. Chicago quickly passed an ordinance which they claimed brought them into compliance with McDonald but which the Ezell opinion stated actually violated the core of the right enshrined within the 2A.

3. Chicago quickly passed a new ordinance which they claimed brought them into compliance with the Ezell ordinance but which they clearly believe still isn't in compliance because they are already seeking to amend the most recent relevant ordinance. This one is a particular sticky wicket since they chose to file the motion even before the amendment to the ordinance is passed - which to me suggests that the Chicago attorney is not at all confident that the amendment required in order to be fully Ezell compliant will actually pass (else why not wait a few days until the ordinances are updated and then file? It's clear that the city can pass an ordinance which changes the entire regulatory schema within a few days so there is no reason that a change from 1,000 feet to 500 feet should take more than a few minutes).

I think that sufficient bad faith on the part of Chicago has been demonstrated that the court just might not allow the case to be ruled moot. I also think Gura/SAF has a pretty good chance of being paid.

[nicki]

Spirit of the Law.

Chicago is engaged in trying to push the envelope of how much civilian disarmament they can maintain.

They can't directly violate our right anymore, so what they are engaged in is a policy designed to discourage ownership by making it difficult for many city residents to meet legal requirements.

Emanual ain't our friend, but perhaps he has other things he cares about and may view gun issues as something that keeps him from other things he aspires to do.

Since I don't follow Chicago Politics, maybe distracting him is a good thing.

Nicki

[Maestro Pistolero]

If we were really sneaky, we would whoop up some incognito opposition to the revised ordinance, claiming Rham's going 'soft' on guns and 'caving to the NRA'. Or something.

IOW, make it politically difficult for him to acquiesce to the case's request for remedy in order to delay him long enough to get an actual ruling.

[dantodd]

I would guess that Gura et. al. will push for the city to sign a settlement that would prevent the repeal of the law, or the abuse of the permitting process, and then allow the case to be mooted.

[hoffmang]

The Ezell appellate decision will now stand unless overruled by an en-banc 7th Circuit case in another case or overturned by the Supreme Court. Said another way - this is binding precedent for the 7th for most likely a long time.

Now that the case has been remanded to the District Court, Chicago is trying to say that it's moot or now soon will be - in the District Court. Chicago will owe SAF/Gura fees through at least the Appeal for example.

If the current "regulation" stands, it's not moot. Also, Chicago got shellacked in another case in District Court based on Ezell. Check out the summary of the Second Amendment Arms oral argument late last week: http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index...howtopic=27040

-Gene

[Untamed1972]

If the current "regulation" stands, it's not moot. Also, Chicago got shellacked in another case in District Court based on Ezell. Check out the summary of the Second Amendment Arms oral argument late last week: http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index...howtopic=27040

-Gene

Wow....sounds like some Judges are even starting to see the writing on the wall, and the fact the 2A 2-step simply will not work and that gov't entities had beeter start taking this 2A business seriously.

[Bobby B.]

The Ezell appellate decision will now stand unless overruled by an en-banc 7th Circuit case in another case or overturned by the Supreme Court. Said another way - this is binding precedent for the 7th for most likely a long time.

-Gene

Does this mean that the possibility of a circuit split is now "inevitable" (with the 9th) against a current/future ruling that will help force important cases before Scotus?

[OleCuss]

Does this mean that the possibility of a circuit split is now "inevitable" (with the 9th) against a current/future ruling that will help force important cases before Scotus?

There are varying opinions as to what constitutes a "split".

IMHO, there is a split between the 7th and the 9th circuits, but that doesn't mean SCOTUS will take any cases. Even if 4 on SCOTUS perceived a "split" it would not guarantee that they would take the case - and if no one on SCOTUS thought there was a split, they could take a case anyway.

Don't worry overly much about split vs no split. Something that we perceive to be a split merely increases the probability that we'll see it taken - but we don't know how much it will change the probability.

But IMHO, there are at least 4 on the court who will be predisposed to work the RKBA if they think they can get 5 votes for their opinion. That means there is (IMHO) a good chance that the 7th/9th opinion differences will result in cert being granted.

But then, my neighbors' dog may be better than I at prognosticating on SCOTUS cert granting. . .

[dantodd]

The Ezell appellate decision will now stand unless overruled by an en-banc 7th Circuit case in another case or overturned by the Supreme Court. Said another way - this is binding precedent for the 7th for most likely a long time.

I thought the only thing the circuit decided is that the Plaintiffs were likely to prevail and therefore were awarded a PI. I can see where the opinion could be used to support other cases but doesn't really seem that it decided on the merits of the case.

[OleCuss]

I thought the only thing the circuit decided is that the Plaintiffs were likely to prevail and therefore were awarded a PI. I can see where the opinion could be used to support other cases but doesn't really seem that it decided on the merits of the case.

I don't think that the 7th granted a PI. They rendered an opinion which could be considered a slap upside the head of the district court and remanded to the district court with a little note telling the court to grant the PI.

Chicago is saying that the case is now moot so the district needn't issue the PI at all.

[HowardW56]

I don't think that the 7th granted a PI. They rendered an opinion which could be considered a slap upside the head of the district court and remanded to the district court with a little note telling the court to grant the PI.

Chicago is saying that the case is now moot so the district needn't issue the PI at all.

The way I understand it, the appelate court determined that the district court judge wasn't applying the correct standard, and determined what that standard should be and that if applied the plaintifs were entitled to the relief sought.

This case set the standard for these cases should be judged...

I'm sure someone smarter than I am will clairfy or correct me if I'm wrong.

[Al Norris]

Howard, that's pretty close. The Ezell panel set the standard as the same as the Heller court did. On questions of 2A infringement as regards Law Abiding Citizens, the standard is the historical inquiry (original meaning) of the right (and any infringement) to which something "almost strict" could be applied.

Note also, that regardless of any so-called 7th/9th split, Alan Gura explicitly pointed out the split between the 7th and the 4th (Masciandaro). Neither the 9th nor the 4th applied the historical inquiry as we saw in Ezell and Heller.

[OleCuss]

The way I understand it, the appelate court determined that the district court judge wasn't applying the correct standard, and determined what that standard should be and that if applied the plaintifs were entitled to the relief sought.

This case set the standard for these cases should be judged...

I'm sure someone smarter than I am will clairfy or correct me if I'm wrong.

No argument with that at all.

Note, however, that it is pretty common for appellate courts to remand the case as was done with Ezell. This means that the 7th said to the district court that they had messed up big-time in their ruling and then sent the case back to that very same district court and told them to apply the standards in their ruling. The 7th Circuit Court did not issue a PI, they effectively sent the case back to the district court with a directive to issue the PI in accordance with the circuit courts guidance.

Similarly, in McDonald the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the lower court with a directive to rule differently and in accordance with SCOTUS thinking.

Think of it as the higher court saying that it is the lower courts' job to issue the final judgment. Sort of like the boss telling the employee to treat the customer differently - but the employee is still the one who takes care of the customer.