Thanks for posting. I’m still reading the opinion but my quick take is:
Breyer: Voted to dismiss as moot
Thomas: Voted NOT to dismiss as moot
Roberts: Voted to dismiss as moot
Ginsburg: Voted to dismiss as moot
Alito: Voted NOT to dismiss as moot
Gorsuch: Voted NOT to dismiss as moot
Sotomayor: Voted to dismiss as moot
Kagan: Voted to dismiss as moot
Kavanaugh: Voted to dismiss as moot but added a two-paragraph concurrence saying that "some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald" and he hopes the court will return to this:
This is a 6-3 vote to dismiss the case without ruling on the merits. The three dissenters are Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and (except for part IV-B) Thomas, who write in a fairly long dissent:
This case is not moot. The City violated petitioners’ Second Amendment right, and we should so hold. I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the District Court to provide appropriate relief. I therefore respectfully dissent.
Of course if this were a First Amendment free speech case or an abortion rights case, it would be no surprise if the same justices in the majority found a way to render an opinion (a right delayed is a right lost!) rather than dismiss as “moot.” But as we know, the Second Amendment is a disfavored second-class right.
One interpretation is that the court has only 3 solid pro-2A votes. This is not the best case, though, because of the mootness question and another interpretation could mean the court has 4 pro-2A votes including Justice Kavanaugh. But neither count would the chief justice, who failed to join Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion, be included as a pro-2A vote.
This is likely to embolden lower courts including the 9th Circuit.
The issue not only mootness. Its mootness + capable of repetition. The NY law is capable of repetition, by the same government. The court could have decided this one. They may have valid reasons for punting, but it isn’t because the issue is not capable of coming up again.
Thanks for posting. I’m still reading the opinion but my quick take is:
This is a 6-3 vote to dismiss the case without ruling on the merits. The three dissenters are Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and (except for part IV-B) Thomas, who write in a fairly long dissent:
Of course if this were a First Amendment free speech case or an abortion rights case, it would be no surprise if the same justices in the majority found a way to render an opinion (a right delayed is a right lost!) rather than dismiss as “moot.” But as we know, the Second Amendment is a disfavored second-class right.
One interpretation is that the court has only 3 solid pro-2A votes. This is not the best case, though, because of the mootness question and another interpretation could mean the court has 4 pro-2A votes including Justice Kavanaugh. But neither count would the chief justice, who failed to join Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion, be included as a pro-2A vote.
This is likely to embolden lower courts including the 9th Circuit.
The issue not only mootness. Its mootness + capable of repetition. The NY law is capable of repetition, by the same government. The court could have decided this one. They may have valid reasons for punting, but it isn’t because the issue is not capable of coming up again.
From the libertarians at Reason:
“I think the Court got this one right: The case as argued is moot.”
https://reason.com/2020/04/27/a-quite-unusual-5-4-split-on-the-supreme-court/