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 -
It might have been persuasive a year ago.
That's the popular explanation. As soon as SCOTUS grants cert for any hardware case, ANJRPC freezes; thus SCOTUS has to hold certiorari votes until ANJRPC releases.
But the timeline kinda breaks down. SCOTUS has seven conferences (including today) left in this session: that's a public schedule, they don't change it, and while it's technically possible to hold cases over from one conference to another, it's rare. As far as I can tell, it's literally unprecedented to have a cluster of cases with this many relists held over from one session to another, or for even one case with this many relists and a broad constitutional right applications (rather than a capital case) to be held over. So there's a strict timeline where some decision, to grant, deny, or hold over, has to happen on June 25th, to be published June 29th, or in the immediately following unofficial clean up conference (typically the last week of June or the first week of July).
ANJRPC had oral arguments October 15, 2025. In theory, the Third Circuit sets an aspirational goal of 120 days between oral arguments and decision, but that's a joke, especially in en banc or politically contentious discussions. We didn't get an ANJRPC opinion in January. In practice, a typical case in this class of discussion would take six to ten months, and this isn't a typical case. It's a consolidation of three different cases (ANJRPC was mostly about magazines, Cheeseman on assault firearms and licensing, Ellman on assault firearms and the 'substantially similar'), ANJRPC itself was previously GVR'd by SCOTUS, an underlying district court decision was an absolute charlie-foxtrot that cabined the matter to one specific model of rifle, so on. ANJRPC-the-organization is hoping on June 30th, aka 'too late' for SCOTUS.
There's also very strong incentive for the Third Circuit to not issue a decision until after Wolford is issued. The case itself isn't likely to matter much, since Wolford is a sensitive places case and probably a pretty limited one focused on the vampire rule, but no matter what direction ANJRPC goes they don't want an immediate GVR to review in light of Wolford. But Wolford had oral arguments January 20th, 2026. And while SCOTUS moves faster than the Third Circuit, and determines when Wolford is issued, most courtwatchers are predicting the last week of May or mid-June. Even if Wolford's opinion releases in May 21st, and it has little relevant dicta, the Third Circuit would be rushed to publish before June 25th. If Wolford isn't going to issue until June 11th -- and SCOTUS can estimate that better than we can! -- then there's zero chance.
((If ANJRPC gets enough votes to go in a pro-gun direction, there's also a nontrivial chance that a judge on the dissent could be hold the case up just to delay things even if Wolford dropped today. There's precedent for that in the 4th Circuit.))
That's weirder still because SCOTUS has a procedure for silently holding certiorari grants if they're waiting on some other actor, even after the question was fully briefed. ANJPRC's last go-around is actually an example, here: it was held in abeyance from August 25, 2021 to June 29, 2022. And that can happen for pretty arbitrary reasons: other relevant cases SCOTUS are hearing is the most common, but possible settlement agreements or waiting for lower court opinions both happen.
Now, SCOTUS doesn't have to do that. But if SCOTUS knew in December that they weren't going to grant or deny for six-plus months, relisting the cases for every following conference just makes these cases higher-profile, and the tension is only heightened by Snope's aftermath. At minimum, it makes no sense to have scheduled Duncan in November, months before Wolford even had oral arguments.
The current holding pattern is worse than any alternative for any judge that wouldn't grant cert outright. Snope itself would have just filed away in the increasing pile of Funny Thomas Dissents like Harrel v. Raoul if it had died at seven relists rather, and might not have even registered on even gunnie-legal-sphere radars if it died at the first conference. It'd still be humiliating for Kavanaugh to deny cert when he specifically highlighted a couple of these cases, and it's only getting more humiliating with each relist.
There's also a very ugly and very political argument about whether Roberts, of all people, wants ANJRPC to issue any opinion at all before SCOTUS can see the case again. The elephant in the room is Emil Bove, who was appointed just before the Third Circuit pulled the case up for en banc review before judgement. He's contentious and perceived as a Trump hatchetman. He's also basically the only chance the case has for a Bruen-compatible result, and it's a long shot.
It's also the last of the post-Bruen GVRs.
There's not really many good options from the institutionalist perspective. And Roberts is nothing if not an institutionalist.
More options
Context Copy link