This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
SCOTUS picks a couple Gun Cases... kinda
SCOTUS has granted cert on two separate firearms-related cases, Wolford v. Lopez and US v. Hemani, for the upcoming term, and they're a bit night-and-day.
In Wolford, plaintiffs asked to block a law after Hawaii had put an effective ban on carry in almost all of the state. This is the 'Bruen says you can't just declare the entire island a sensitive space, Hawaii asked how about five islands then' case. While a couple goofier parts of the law did receive a temporary injunction, the lower courts notably did not block a requirement that CCW permitees get explicit and specific permission from any private property owner before carrying on their property; even the Second Circuit found this sort of requirement (nicknamed a "vampire rule" by opponents) as so likely unconstitutional as to mandate a temporary restraining order against it. Worse, the 9th Circuit did so under a chain of logic depending on very recent laws and sometimes even private company restrictions to justify Hawaii's rule, with little actual relevant to the rule in question here, while simultaneously promoting the historical analogues to such wide spread of generality as to permit any law. For the "vampire rule" specifically, Hawaii was only able to find two analogues even under that widely expansive standard, one an anti-poaching statute and one a literal post-Civil War racist Black Code, and the 9th Circuit still found it close enough despite the explicit text of Bruen that "[W]e doubt that three colonial regulations could suffice to show a tradition..." This is, yet again, plain defiance of higher court rulings.
Which makes the actual cert grant weird, because it's not really getting into all of that. The only question SCOTUS granted cert on was the "vampire" rule itself; the petitioners also asked about the 9th Circuit's fishing expedition into more recent laws (and non-laws), and SCOTUS punted on that despite a wide and clear circuit split. SCOTUS can and has granted cert for broader questions that petitioners asked, before, and without doing so, this seems near-certain to result in a decision good for one case only; even a Thomas-level dicta won't actually have a holding that applies even to other vampire rules, nevermind other 'declare an island a sensitive place'-style laws.
Hemani is more complicated. A lot of media coverage focuses on a comically bad set of claimed background details -- the US government claims Hemani is not merely a drug user or a jerk but a literal Iran-tied worshipper of terrorism -- and to a large extent, those claimed details overdetermine the near-certain resolution of this case. Like Rahimi, SCOTUS wants the case with the worst possible optics so as to give the thumbs-up to expansive gun control regulations; there's even a lot of tea leaves to suggest that the Biden-era DoJ put some effort into tailoring this case, given that the government conceded the case as covered by a different case they thought wrongly decided. A naive reader might hope that this is going to result in some broader rule that, even if bad for Hemani himself, leaves stricter rules for merely incidental drug-and-gun users, but you'd have to be really naive.
Which makes the actual cert grant weird. The lower courts put a lot of analysis on how poorly the government supported a blanket ban and how expansively they held it to apply to cases far more unreasonable than Hemani's, but ultimately it leaves the prohibited person rule in place so long as the government show the drug user wasn't sober while possessing the gun. Indeed, there were other earlier cases with the same constitutional question, answer, and far more palatable facts: the government just didn't request cert for Connelly; they don't seem to have been important enough for SCOTUS to care. Nor, frankly, does this case even seem to leave things unsolvable even for the constraints of its specific people, since not only does Hemani have a bunch of other things going on worth a lengthy prison sentence, it's not even clear why the government couldn't prove or at least present evidence toward the Connelly intoxicated-while-possessing standard.
There might be some schadenfruede to watch the left side of the bench throw away due process rights in favor of gun control (or, conversely, Thomas and Alito throwing gun rights under the bus because eww pot), but only to the extent anyone has any shame left.
On its own, these would not necessarily been that offensive as selections, but they are on their own. The court's selection of other recent cases has not been quick to grab every marginal or borderline case. There's no small number of other, broader cases going up before the court and only getting the punt. Duncan and Viramontes are both up for cert, now, and in Duncan's case both for final judgement and for all the marbles: failing to grant cert does not merely encourage more broad gun control, but actively will claw back a lot of previously-lawfully-owned property with a happy finger-flip to the Takings Clause, too. There's no law saying the court can only take so many gun cases, but if you had to put a bet about whether the court would pick two or four, the over/under is pretty clear.
Vullo Is Back... kinda
lol jk, there's basically zero chance of a cert grant on these facts
Adamiak had his day in the Fourth Circuit... kinda
Adamiak was accused and found guilty of posessing machine guns. The SAF has more details on both the charges and the convictions, but to be as a tl;dr: they weren't actually machine guns, or even guns. The ATF argued, under the Trump admin, that disabled (sometimes to the point of being cut in half) and inert pieces of a firearm were still machine guns or rocket launchers, because they could be brought to real functionality... by long efforts by skilled experts bringing in sizable parts, in some cases including everything that actually functioned.
Where the court says "thoroughly reviewed", that's got a bit of an asterisk. The Double Jeopardy clause gets a bit more than a page; the other constitutional arguments get...
Yes, that Bianchi. Happy Fuck You Too Day, Justices, this is what your punts have bought; this is the nonconsentual volunteer VanDerStok demanded. And it's going to go nowhere. Malinowski is still dead, his widow's lawsuit is going nowhere, and no one cares that the agents involved gathered more bodycam footage of his widow pissing than they did of the actual raid. Dexter Taylor's still in prison, and in the unlikely situation his case ever gets to a court that actually recognized the Second Amendment as existing in their courtroom, he'll have served a majority of his unjust sentence first.
Reese v. ATF Wins... kinda
Reese is one of many lawsuits challenging the federal prohibition on sales of handguns by FFLs to people between the age of 18 and 20. Most of these have died quick deaths to mootness; prospective plaintiffs can only bring a challenge for three years after the matter becomes ripe on their 18th birthday and before it becomes moot on their 21st, court cases making decisions in that time frame (and not involving illegal immigrants) are rare, and they're rarer still in Second Amendment contexts. Organizational plaintiffs have thus had to prepare a consistent parade of young adults willing to sacrifice a lot of potential negative attention in trade for benefits that likely won't include them, while also ducking other procedural hurdles.
But Reese pulled it off. A complaint filed in November of 2020 eventually made it to a January 2025 appeals court decision which held:
And even more surprisingly the federal government did not appeal to SCOTUS. Perhaps that's downstream of a change in administrations, perhaps it's just caution about setting broad jurisprudence against a law, perhaps it's just about incompetence. But finally, a major change that could drastically impact a lot of people could apply to jurisdictions too wide for legislatures to just file the serial numbers off and try again, even if it's just one circuit.
Why am I only writing about it now? Why hasn't been newsworthy that a whole Circuit has let 18-year-olds buy handguns?
Well, the circuit hadn't; for various procedural reasons the appeals court does not issue mandates, and the trial court was in no hurry. October 7th finally (finally!) had a final judgement issued. And that judgement came with a massive caveat:
That's not even a "if you were a FFL and a member of these orgs before November 2020, you can't be prosecuted under this unconstitutional law". Only where the buyers are under-20 and were members of the groups a half-decade before does the declaration apply. This judgement might not be literally absolutely toothless -- someone might have bought their thirteen-year-old kid a membership in the SAF five years back -- but it's so close that the distinction is meaningless. Forget "old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit", we've got young men making serious sacrifices for shade that covers nobody, ever.
The judgement was revoked for other even dumber reasons -- the judge demanded each org provide a verified membership list within 21 days, which wasn't going to fly at SAF for a variety well-formed objections and the government (claims to) have never asked for or wanted in the first place. So now we're waiting til October 27th to even start planning on how to have a final judgement in a case whose appeal opinion issued on January 30th, and I can accurately joke about how a healthy woman can make a baby faster than Robert R Summerhays, a duly-appointed honorable member of the federal court system, can make a decision protecting the real rights of tens or hundreds of thousands of people. And assuming the judge in question is not excessively overdue, in a month I can even joke about how, no, the courts don't do that for normal people.
(Additional bonus: no attorney's fees for the plaintiffs, so they probably spent between 50k and 150k on a case that means bupkiss. Why? Because fuck you that's why.)
Some context here: After the 5th Circuit made their decision, the parties agreed to hold of on entering a final judgment until the deadline for a cert petition had passed on July 1. After the government declined to appeal, a judicial conference was held on July 2 wherein Summerhays asked the parties to confer on a joint order. On July 29 he granted a joint motion to extend the deadline until September 2, at which point they could either submit a joint order or submit their own proposed orders. The parties reached an impasse, and submitted their own proposed orders on that date. The Plaintiffs included a statement that they'd submit briefs upon request of the court. The government submitted a brief with their proposed order. The Plaintiffs then submitted their own brief on September 14. The court issued its initial judgment on October 7. I'm not seeing any undue delay here, just the normal operation of the judicial system.
As for the judgment itself, you write:
A couple things need to be distinguished here. First, the ATF made it clear that it recognizes the court's decision and does not intend to enforce the prohibition within the geographic boundaries of the Fifth Circuit. That's the general consequence. That's to be distinguished from the specific order the District Court enters, which formally binds the parties at the risk of contempt. In that sense, the Plaintiffs probably imagined that an order such as you have in mind was possible when they filed the suit, but the law does not exist in a vacuum, and with the Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that possibility went out the window.
To refresh your memory, District Court injunctions can only bind parties to the suit. In this context, the Plaintiffs concede that a universal injunction is off the table. The crux of the argument is over whether the order covers anyone who was a member of the Plaintiff organizations at any time, now and forever, or whether it is limited to specific people who meet certain criteria. These arguments come down to the scope of organizational standing, and I don't want to get too far into it because the details are highly technical and are prone to changing opinions based on culture war elements. Suffice it to say that the government's argument was that the Plaintiffs were trying to use organizational standing as an impermissible backdoor around filing a class action suit. And while the Plaintiffs made good arguments overall on this point, the most they could have gotten by my admittedly brief reading was an extension to members as of the date of the judgment.
The other point was the release of the membership lists, which the government argued were necessary because they needed to know who they were enjoined from prosecuting under the order. Again, the Plaintiffs made good arguments that there was no precedent requiring this and that it was up to the Defendant to figure it out, but the examples they gave on how they were supposed to do this were ludicrous to the point that they'd probably regret it if the ATF actually implemented them (one suggested that the ATF form be amended to ask if the buyer was a member of a Plaintiff organization; aside from the impracticality of the government amending its forms to account for a small subset of purchasers, I doubt these groups want their members undergoing a guaranteed ATF investigation to verify their memberships).
I think that what happened in the end is that, in light of the CASA decision and that nether party could provide anything that was really on point and not possibly overruled by CASA, the judge was disinclined to grant any specific relief to any parties beyond those absolutely necessary to resolve the case, and gave the government more or less the order they asked for.
Again, you have to look at the procedural posture. Three days after judgment was entered the parties filed a joint motion to amend, and the judgment was vacated a few days after that. The conference on the 27th is more or less a housekeeping item where the judge talks to the parties about their agreement before entering judgment. To be clear, the government never specifically asked the court that they enter an order compelling the Plaintiffs to turn over membership lists, only that the judgment be limited to verified members. The parties are looking to amend the judgment so that it applies to those members who the organizations voluntarily disclose to the court. It's certainly possible that Judge Summerhays has an independent streak and wants membership lists so he can name individuals in the final order, but I highly doubt it, and I expect the judgment to be entered as agreed to by the parties before the end of the month. The Plaintiffs can appeal, but I doubt that will happen, given the limited practical implications and the minefield they'd be entering. If they were to appeal and win, it would have serious implications for the kinds of injunctions Trump has so far successfully prevented, as it would allow Plaintiffs to for nebulous organizations, allow judges to grant injunctive relief to anyone who is a member of the organization, regardless of time, and put the burden on the government for determining whether someone is a member of the organization.
A year ago, that was a plausible argument. It's not longer a plausible one. The normal operation of the judicial system now has the highest court in the land intervene to defend absolute randos in overnight on a holiday weekend. It means something when that happens then, and literally never here.
They only claimed that they did not plan to begin enforcement actions of an unconstitutional law as of September 2nd -- again, nearly eight months after the Circuit decision. There is no guidance issued to vendors, even today. And, unsurprisingly, vendors are not in a particular hurry to trust the ATF pinky swears.
Do you think that standard will be consistently applied to other causes?
Yes, the judge gave the government exactly what it wanted (and then a little more), after the government had spent long years infringing on the rights of. And that's just how things go, when it comes to civil rights that progressives don't like. And I'm spelling it out.
It's a violation of federal law to lie on a form 4473 -- you may remember some high-profile schmuck with a neopotistic background getting a pretty weird pardon after a big criminal lawsuit on this matter -- and this would leave a lot of valid ways for anyone with a brainstem to think of ways for the ATF to validly prosecute violations only where they had reasonable belief, without first having a full list of the org's membership, that a specific member did not belong to the org. You know, if they weren't also claiming that they were not going to prosecute this particular unconstitutional offense to start with, making the whole question moot.
Now, ATF, so they'd probably still shoot someone and their dog while politely serving a subpeona for membership records specific to a named individual against a third party. But not because of this proposal.
There's ways to solve these problems. There's ways to solve these problems even under the most expansive reading of CASA imaginable, the way that's never getting applied to a single left-wing cause. But you know, and I know, that's never going to happen here.
I'm not sure what you mean here since there weren't any emergency petitions in this case, and when the delay is on joint motion, I'm not sure how you can complain about it. What was the court supposed to do, guess what kind of order the parties were looking for and then wait for it to get appealed?
I'm not sure what the case you linked is supposed to prove since the opinion was issued before CASA was decided. Either way, is the judge supposed to just blatantly ignore precedent because another judge might in the future in an unrelated case (and get reversed on appeal)? Whether or not vendors trust the ATF to not enforce the law is irrelevant if the court is powerless to grant an injunction.
I'm not sure what your argument is here, but mine was poorly phrased, so let me reiterate: The organizations don't want to turn over membership lists, which is understandable. If the ATF had, apropos of nothing, added a question to its forms about memberships in certain organizations, these organizations would be rightly up in arms about it. But now one of these organizations suggests with a straight face that that's exactly what they do? And it gets worse; they weren't looking for this to be a narrowly tailored question that was part of the order, but just throwing it out there as something that was already within the ATF's authority. They don't want to turn over a list, but they have no problem making their members voluntarily disclose their affiliation every time they buy a gun. I find it curious and a bit disingenuous, that's all.
In all, I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Most of the time your legal analysis is pretty good for a non-lawyer, but here you seem to have mucked up the analysis because you didn't understand the procedural posture of the case, and you seem to be advocating an outcome that's facially against the law and that neither party asked for in the first place. And all of this is underlain by your woe-is-me routine where absolutely everyone in government is completely ignorant of Second Amendment rights even as you ask a court to overturn a law that's been in place for over 50 years and has been upheld multiple times, including by the circuit in question.
I don't know anything about Summerhayes but he was a Trump appointee and I don't see anything in this case that suggests he's anything other than a straight shooter. I didn't write that comment with the intent to question the Fith Circuit's decision or anything like that, just to explain why the case unfolded the way it did, and why it's over for now.
To be clear, I'm not making allegations that there are clear violations of process or defiance of higher court. I have other examples for that. I'm making three different criticisms, here:
Regardless of Summerhayes' relative level of competence or political alignment, there are pretty clear problems in this decision. A federal judge should not accidentally issue a ruling that leaves people referencing NAACP v. Alabama in rejoinder. The previous proposed order does not cover Broussard, a named member of the plaintiff orgs, who was the only reason the plaintiffs still had standing, which the plaintiffs specifically noted would not be protected by the language that the court adopted. The extreme constraint of declaratory relief are even less defensible, and seem to be based on an active misread of the Declaratory Judgement Act promoted by the defendants playing a game of telephone with citing mangled citations to irrelevant cases. And as a lesser bugaboo, the court could have read 44 pages and written a 2 page order in less than 18 days; I expect more from teenagers writing book reports, and many of them don't have this sort of grievous error at the same time they scrawl out their five paragraph essays the night before.
((I'm using his name, specifically, because I'm trying to make a not-very-subtle dick pun as a contrast to the length-of-a-pregnancy one, and it's a lot less funny if the judge in question here was a woman or named Richard.))
Going to relative competence, it's a problem if this is that average behavior, and that these are Just The Ways Things Are Done in the courts. Yes, it's absolutely normal for the courts to give out broad extensions; it's absolutely normal to rubber stamp the government's requests on final judgement; it's absolutely standard for the wheels of justice to grind slow and fall back on prayer when it gets to fine. It's absolutely normal for the government to treat the ATF and DOJ like honest actors, and anyone complaining about it to a judge would only hurt their own case. I'll quibble about the difference between joint and uncontested actions, and recognize that there are worse courts, but ultimately, they end here.
Going to political alignment, it's a problem that there are exclusions to this standard. The ability of courts to offer widespread orders even very early in process and posture is not a casualty of CASA. Yes, there's a defense of the court process that in that case, people filed a request for an order (though I will note that they didn't request many specifics the judge ordered anyway, like the body cameras). Those plaintiffs were willing to request the moon, earth, and sky because they knew that they had a significant chance of getting it, and faced little risk of slowing their case's roll otherwise; the plaintiffs in Reese knew, quite well, that they had absolutely zero chance until after a lengthy appeal process that would outlast any relevance of the case to themselves.
And, leaving aside the judicial system itself, I can point out that the Most Pro-Gun Administration Ever futzed around with considering a cert grant for months on end, and then could not come up with either a compromise or a reasonable request for judgment, and in that entire time still has not written a guidance letter to FFLs who this case would immediately impact and who the government is willing to tell -- but only in non-binding ways and only months after supposedly making the decision -- that it tots promises not to prosecute them (offer only good until a Dem administration thinks it's going to win in court). Yes, I understand how the difference between precedent and judgement works; I also understand that post-Defense Distributed settlement being treated like toilet paper, that this means a lot less than lawyers pretend it does.
I'm trying to make a prediction, and to get a prediction in response: if the case is not mooted or lost, do you believe that its final judgement will be solely limited to the seven current plaintiffs?
The court isn't powerless to grant an injunction. The court has expansive opportunities to grant relief, so long as those opportunities are specific to the parties in this case. It's just not going to do so because no one asked it, and no one asked because they know and anyone remotely familiar with the courts knows that the courts won't grant such a request, as a matter of long-standing policy.
And other courts have been quite happy to jump up and down on that bar when they do not trust the government, or even when plaintiffs make sufficiently sordid stories about how they don't trust the government and we gotta have a ruling asap because of that.
No, they say that having members who want to buy a gun specifically under a legal defense provided by being a member of that organization 'making' that voluntary disclosure would at least be a possible response that doesn't involve telling the winners in a court case to sit on NAACP and spin. It's only one of the options that the plaintiffs provided, and the one they'd favor least, but it's a lot less destructive than 'here's our member list uncle sam please don't leak it'.
It's unclear whether NAACP would actually apply in this case. That case involved an as-applied challenge, not a facial one, and an challenge in this case would accordingly only be successful if the Plaintiffs could demonstrate both that the disclosure was unnecessary and that it would subject the members to harm. The first bar is difficult for them to overcome since the government has a clear interest to know with some degree of particularity whom the judgment applies to. The plaintiffs assert that it's up to the government to figure out how to comply with the order, but they don't cite any case law for that, just an article from the Harvard Law Review arguing against nationwide injunctions. Interestingly enough, the cited article actually refers to a case where the court granted universal relief based on the idea that it would be difficult for law enforcement to identify members of the plaintiff association, and argues that that this was unnecessary because members could simply identify themselves! The second prong would be even harder for the plaintiffs to meet, because similar challenges in the past have failed because the plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate any harm beyond minor harassment. The NAACP members were able to show clear cases of death threats and other serious activity. If there were similar instances of harm against the named plaintiffs in this case, then they might be able to meet that burden, but I haven't seen any evidence of this so far. I would also add that courts are generally impatient when it comes to plaintiffs refusing to make disclosures that would advance their interests in the context of the case. The cases I'm aware of that involve disclosure of membership involve the government suing or imposing requirements on organizations that never asked for anything, not plaintiffs who are unwilling to participate in litigation they commenced. On a weekly basis I deal with plaintiffs who bitch about having to be deposed for days on end and asked questions they couldn't possibly know the answers to, to which I want to tell them "You can make this stop right now if you drop the suit." My point here isn't that requiring such a disclosure would necessarily be impermissible, just that the judge isn't incompetent for assuming it wouldn't be, as there's no blanket rule prohibiting the government from making such a request.
Yeah, they could have, in a vacuum, but, and this may surprise you, this isn't the only case the judge is dealing with. You have no idea what else the judge had to deal with in those 18 days, and he isn't going to drop everything to issue one order among many he has on his plate. The fact that he got it in within 30 suggests that he had a normal workload, but if the submissions hit in the middle of a trial it could have taken months before he got to it. I know this is your hobby horse and you think that these cases should take precedence because they involve fundamental rights or whatever, but every case involves someone looking for their rights to be vindicated.
It seems that your overriding problem with the courts stems not so much from any of the things you describe, but with the fact that they don't always rule the way you want them to. You can complain all you want about the court's willingness to grant extensions, but would you consider it a preferable outcome if the court refused to grant the Plaintiffs an extension to file a reply brief and they ended up dismissing the case with prejudice? Because something similar to that is bound to happen, and the judicial system as a whole would love to be able to clear their calendars, but everyone involved recognizes that people have other shit to do and that the system works better if everyone grants some professional courtesy here and there. Yeah, things move slow, but no lawyer can make a living on one case at a time, and if you want judges to do the same you're going to be paying for a lot of waiting around.
No, it isn't, and I never said that it was. But I'm not sure what your argument is here by posting a totally different case from a different court. Just because courts grant emergency releif in some cases doesn't mean it's appropriate in every case, and you haven't made the argument that it would have been appropriate here. They didn't ask for emergency relief because there was no grounds to do so, and of course the judge wouldn't grant the motion.
If this is your complaint maybe you need to consider the possibility that you hold a fringe position that's broadly unpopular, and that it's unreasonable for you to expect the courts to do everything you want them to do, or that maybe Federal judges know a little more about the law than you do.
I don't know whether the groups in question are willing to provide the names of people whom the order would still apply to in a meaningful way. If there are a few such people, they might, with consent, release the names to the ATF in order to secure the injunction. I think this is what next week's conference is going to be about, and why the judge wants to hold one instead of simply signing a joint order. But beyond that, the upshot of the case is that the government won't be able to prosecute FFL holders for selling guns to 18-year-olds in the Fifth District. Even absent an injunction, any such prosecution will get kicked pretty quickly. Whether or not any gun stores will be willing to sell to anyone under 21 is an open question, and is up to the discretion of the stores themselves. The risk is that the ATF prosecutes anyway and wins when the case is overturned by the Supreme Court. An injunction would not prevent this outcome. If the ATF decided to prosecute for an underage sale in contravention of the Fifth Circuit's decision, and there was an an injunction against doing so, and the ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court, the result is not that the case would get kicked, but that someone would get prosecuted for contempt. In that situation, it's nothing more than a consolation prize.
While courtrooms and mathematicians might need people to demonstrate 1 + 1 = 2, actual humans -- including judges acting of their own volition -- can notice that a) the DoJ has a long history of leaking private information like a sieve after collecting it from right-wing-aligned orgs, b) no small number of SAF's members would face social and career ramifications were their membership publicized, and c) plaintiffs presented alternatives over two weeks before the judge submitted this final judgement.
I'm sure the court can Well Asckshutally how that's not quite the explicit standard from NAACP. I'm also hoping that the 'winners' in a court case not need be faced with the question of whether the final judgement is so unconstitutional it's covered all four corners under a decades-old foundational court case, or 'just' unreasonable and harmful to the 'winners' and likely unconstitutional.
The government did not make a request. The judge ordered that the full list be delivered, in three weeks, as a final judgment binding on the parties in this case. As you so wittingly pointed out, punishable by contempt for noncompliance. If you ignore what's voluntary and what's actually mandated by court order, the court orders look fine, but you've made this mistake multiple times in this conversation, and it's fooling no one else.
I'm not claiming it's incompetence -- I specifically say "regardless of Summerhayes' relative level of competence"! -- but it's clearly a problem, and more a problem for never even questioning whether the people he's targeting would want to comply, and if the search for neutral institutions just means we get a random selection between this and "the Second Amendment does not exist in this courtroom", all it's presented is a good argument against neutral institutions.
Behold, a federal courthouse operating at peak efficiency under normal constraints. I'm not claiming these guys are just sitting on their backside and eating bonbons the whole day long, and I'm sure there's other priorities. And I'm also pretty sure that they're not putting in 9/9/6 weeks. This just wasn't a priority.
That's an unintentionally funny joke. The courtroom's activities on September 19th were a sentencing hearing for a prohibited person case (drugs, coincidentally, albeit somehow still more sympathetic than Hemani), a revocation of supervised release, and then the one case that actually involved the judge in question here, a drug-related warrant case. The first two just plainly aren't about vindicating rights; they're about enforcing the law. An important role, but a different one.
Ah, but if the court had delayed Sam, perhaps I or someone else would be moaning about that... well, no, probably not. Apologies for linking to an AI summary, but I'm not paying for this case, and there's a reason no one else is either; it's hilariously overdetermined even by the morbid standards of Fourth Amendment questions. And, bluntly, I don't think that's the actual tradeoff.
There's a more serious defense that the courts can't do that sort of prioritization. And it died with Snope. They can and do and have. This just isn't a priority; this just doesn't take precedence when countless other matters have. That's absolutely my point, and more damning's that it isn't limited to this one hobby horse.
No. My problem is that I could buy either a court system actually obsessed with legal formalism, or one that considers the rights of individuals heavy on the scale regardless of the political allegiance of those rights. We have neither. We've had neither for a long time. I've spelled out that we've had neither for a long time.
By, of course, the extremely well-grounded and long-standing principles of where that tots haven't been rebuilt post-hoc to support progressive goals and ignore conservative ones, you mean?
No, they didn't ask for emergency relief here for the same reason they didn't request a temporary restraining order, even though that'd be the only way for any of their plaintiffs to ever actually personally benefit: because the courts would suddenly find novel and strict adherence to very specific precedent, while other judges in other contexts would find such things irrelevant compared to the terrified hallucinations of an immigration lawyer.
Considered, found in contradiction with the (available, since you don't bother actually arguing it) evidence, and even were it true, still runs into the central problem that we've still seen courts bend over backwards to defend fringe positions that were broadly unpopular, by federal judges that pretended to know a lot about the law as long as it got them what they wanted. All it's done is demonstrate nothing but will to power games winning.
More broadly, your complete inability to name any case where this should fall the other direction makes clear exactly how principled this position isn't. We're over a decade past a President completely refusing to defend a federal law because he thought it unconstitutional; there's no shortage of such gun laws today, no few of which have far less political or popular support. We do not see that happen today, no matter how bullshit or outright incoherent the law, nor do we see the administration assigning Guiliani to defend the laws badly on purpose. It's not a tactic that they use because it won't work, and they've found that out once already.
There were only three plaintiffs when this case started, and the court for some godsforsaken reason isn't willing to include someone who already declared his name publicly after the case started and before it concluded, and was the only reason the plaintiffs still had standing, and would not have been covered by the previous final judgement even had SAF been willing to hand over their membership records.
I think there's a fifty-fifty chance the judge doesn't file an final judgement by the end of day after the conference, a twenty percent chance that they just end up scheduling another briefing (todo: whenever people's rights matter again), and whatever he does eventually give is a pointless pro forma that just delays the plaintiffs appeal and issuance of mandate, applying to a single-digit number of people or no one. 30% confidence it doesn't even include Broussard.
((Also, I was asking for your predictions in one of the trans military ban case. The one I linked where the courts already issued a pre-CASA injunction, where the court never did in this case, and where oral arguments have repeatedly shown judges trying to argue for the most expansive judgement possible post-CASA. By legal formalism, that's just the seven plaintiffs in that case; there's not even association standing. Do you want to bet whether that will change, and whether the join date on that organization will be set in January of this year? For the inevitable declaratory judgement?))
Strange how they'd be willing to leave money on the table, if it were so certain. Oh well, good thing we don't have recent cases where the federal courts issued broad rules that the feds would have to follow to soothe the nerves of randos making broad and unsupported claims of bad actions or suspected bad actions!
To be clear, this isn't The Most Central Example of the problems. Unfortunately, time is an arrow, the door is ajar, talking about problems seldom coincides with maxima happening. If I absolutely had to point to a case that screamed out for preliminary injunction, I'd probably point to the Illinois ban-sans-definition, since it's a new law so all the 'maintain status quo' stuff was self-evident bunk and SCOTUS didn't care even as lower courts announced that the bans didn't even implicate 2A rights. Maybe sprinkle in some of CCW permit/renewal cases which are basically distilled "important and recurring issues which, by virtue of their relatively brief existence, would be rendered otherwise nonreviewable" and often also include state actors ignoring their own law, and never seem to matter.
But part of my point is to show that it's not some rare nutpicks, or just for cases so controversial as to get to SCOTUS, or only one particularly extreme or unusual policies, or only in particularly left-leaning jurisdictions and you could just move to a red state. On its own, this case wouldn't be that bad; maybe, eventually, someday, if a mandate ever issues and an FFL isn't terrified of the ATF playing silly buggers in three years, a 20-year-old will be able to legally buy a new handgun. But when no one can pull a counterexample from some vastly overexpansive ruling from one of Trump's many ideologically-driven and unprofessional nutjobs larger than Freedom Week, and no one can show a bigger or more by-the-book victory, and I can keep giving example after example after example over fifteen years of jurisprudence, it's a much more relevant pattern.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link