SCOTUS Catch-all | Upholds Ghost Gun Regulations 7-2

[nycfan]

“… State lawmakers from both political parties, along with celebrities like Kim Kardashian, had called for clemency or a new trial.

Most crucially, Attorney General Gentner Drummond of Oklahoma, a Republican, had asked the justices to throw out Mr. Glossip’s 2004 conviction and order a retrial.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Amy Coney Barrett dissented in whole or in part. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who had heard an aspect of the case as an appeals court judge, was recused from it.

Mr. Glossip was convicted of arranging the death of his employer, the owner of a motel in Oklahoma City. Two independent investigations cast doubt on his guilt, saying critical evidence had been withheld and major testimony was faulty.

Mr. Glossip’s conviction was based almost entirely on the testimony of the state’s star witness, a handyman named Justin Sneed who had pleaded guilty to killing Barry Van Treese, the motel owner, beating him to death in 1997 with a baseball bat.

In exchange for a life sentence, Mr. Sneed agreed to testify against Mr. Glossip, the motel’s manager. Mr. Sneed said Mr. Glossip had instructed him to kill Mr. Van Treese. …”

 

[nycfan]

Also

Lackey v. Stinnie - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

www.scotusblog.com

 

[nycfan]

BREAKING: Supreme Court Backs Broad View Of Lawsuit Revival Rule - Law360

Despite fears of "litigation gamesmanship," the U.S. Supreme Court held Wednesday that cases dismissed voluntarily can later be eligible for special judicial relief and reopening, even if a statute of limitations would typically block the lawsuit.

www.law360.com

"Despite fears of "litigation gamesmanship," the U.S. Supreme Court held Wednesday that cases dismissed voluntarily can later be eligible for special judicial relief and reopening, even if a statute of limitations would typically block the lawsuit.

Wednesday's unanimous decision in Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services — a technical dispute that could nonetheless have important ramifications — found that cases dropped voluntarily without prejudice qualify as "final proceedings," making them eligible for reopening under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60.

According to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's opinion, voluntary dismissals fit well within the court's Rule 60(b) power to review "final" acts. Otherwise, he said, voluntary dismissals would end up in a "procedural no man's land," where they wouldn't be considered interlocutory or final. ..."

 

[nycfan]

Also

Lackey v. Stinnie - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

www.scotusblog.com

Justices Limit 'Prevailing Party' Status For Atty Fees​

Justices Limit 'Prevailing Party' Status For Atty Fees - Law360

Litigants will no longer be considered the "prevailing party" — and thus won't be eligible for attorney fees — if they achieve courtroom victories via preliminary injunction instead of a final judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court has found, in a ruling that's expected to be a blow to legal advocacy...

www.law360.com

"Litigants will no longer be considered the "prevailing party" — and thus won't be eligible for attorney fees — if they achieve courtroom victories via preliminary injunction instead of a final judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court has found, in a ruling that's expected to be a blow to legal advocacy groups.

In a 7-2 decision issued Tuesday, the majority said the "transient victory" of a preliminary injunction is not enough to declare a litigant the prevailing party, only a final ruling that results in a material change between the parties that's both "judicially sanctioned and enduring."

"Because preliminary injunctions do not conclusively resolve the rights of parties on the merits, they do not confer prevailing party status," the majority said.

"Prevailing party" is a legal term of art which, in the context of civil rights lawsuits, allows legal advocacy groups to recoup attorney fees and costs if they successfully strike down unconstitutional laws or government policies.

Enshrined in Section 1988 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code in 1976, the prevailing party fee-shifting framework has since become a cornerstone of the U.S. system of private civil rights enforcement.

There is widespread disagreement over how often those types of suits are resolved by preliminary injunction rather than by final rulings, but a flurry of amicus briefs from advocacy groups warned that a ruling that narrows the definition of prevailing party would hurt their finances and make it harder to bring cases.

That assessment was shared by groups from the left-leaning American Civil Liberties Union to the archconservative Alliance Defending Freedom. ..."

 

[nycfan]

The Unsubstantiated Allegations Against the Oklahoma AG in the Glossip Case

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor , invalidated the murder conviction (and thus also the death sentence) of ...

www.dorfonlaw.org

“On Tuesday, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor, invalidated the murder conviction (and thus also the death sentence) of Richard Glossip and sent his case back to the Oklahoma courts so that they can either release Glossip or retry him (for what would be his third trial on this charge).

… According to the dissent, Glossip and the state Attorney General--who agreed that Glossip was entitled to a new trial--colluded to exclude evidence from the record tending to show that the prosecutor at the time did not in fact conceal or mischaracterize evidence regarding Sneed's mental health history.

The dissent based this account on material provided by Professor Paul Cassell, who filed a brief on behalf of the surviving family members of the victim. Professor Cassell further expounded his view in an essay this week on the Volokh Conspiracy.

Putting aside the merits, there is a mystery that neither Professor Cassell nor Justice Thomas has solved. Each of them accuses Oklahoma State Attorney General Gentner Drummond of colluding with Glossip to present the Supreme Court with an inaccurate picture of the facts and the record. But they don't explain why Drummond would do such a thing. Indeed, in his brief, Professor Cassell admits that the reasons why Drummond "personally believes that a new trial is warranted" for Glossip are "unclear." Quoting Justice Thomas's dissent in his Volokh essay, Cassell then says that Attorney "General Drummond still has no explanation for why he 'collusively excluded … highly relevant evidence from the record.'"

There is, however, an obvious innocent explanation. There was no "collusion," only agreement. Perhaps Drummond simply reviewed the record and concluded that Glossip's rights were violated.

… Justice Thomas goes beyond insinuation.

He first impugns the integrity of lawyers hired by "a group of legislators opposed to" Glossip's execution by noting that the lawyers so hired work for a firm that is "publicly committed to 'fighting the death penalty.'" (It appears that Justice Thomas thinks this is discrediting in the way that a commitment to public defecation would be. But I digress.)

Drummond's predecessor as Oklahoma AG did not credit the lawyers' work, but when Drummond took office, he apparently did.

Justice Thomas then impugns the integrity of another lawyer.

He recounts that Drummond "appointed Rex Duncan, a personal friend and campaign donor, as independent counsel to reexamine the legitimacy of Glossip’s conviction." (It's so very heartening that Justice Thomas is concerned about appearances of impropriety when government officials accept largesse from personal friends. But I digress again.)

Presumably, Justice Thomas expects the reader to think that Drummond appointed his friend and campaign donor Duncan because Drummond wanted an investigator who would reach a pre-determined conclusion that Glossip's trial was marred by constitutional errors that cast doubt on his guilt.

But, again, why? So far as I can tell, neither Professor Cassell, Justice Thomas, nor anyone else has offered any remotely plausible explanation for whyDrummond would deliberately help a murderer escape justice.

Drummond and Duncan are both Republicans. Each has had political differences with some other Oklahoma Republicans, but that's hardly a reason to doubt their integrity.

Meanwhile, Drummond has announced his intention to run for Governor of Oklahoma. Based on his official bio page, he appears to be quite conservative on immigration, industry regulation, and various other issues. Taking a high-profile stance on behalf of a person convicted of murder is hardly going to benefit him politically. Drummond would thus be likely to do so only if he had some really good reason to take such a stance. …”

 

[nycfan]

Supreme Court Upholds Regulation of ‘Ghost Guns’​

Justices find in 7-2 decision that federal law covers firearms kits​

GIFT LINK —> https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/sup...45?st=ZbEvzy&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink

“… The gun industry had challenged a Biden-era regulation treating ghost guns like other firearms, with the same licensing, background checks and serial number requirements. A federal appeals court in New Orleans had set aside the regulation, reasoning that weapons parts aren’t weapons and thus weren’t covered by the Gun Control Act of 1968.

On Wednesday, a 7-2 Supreme Court disagreed. At least some gun kits fit the definition that Congress set out, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court, and therefore the regulation stands. The court left open the possibility that some kits might be so far from a finished gun as to fall outside the regulation. …”

 

[nycfan]

Supreme Court Upholds Regulation of ‘Ghost Guns’​

Justices find in 7-2 decision that federal law covers firearms kits​

GIFT LINK —> https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/sup...45?st=ZbEvzy&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink

“… The gun industry had challenged a Biden-era regulation treating ghost guns like other firearms, with the same licensing, background checks and serial number requirements. A federal appeals court in New Orleans had set aside the regulation, reasoning that weapons parts aren’t weapons and thus weren’t covered by the Gun Control Act of 1968.

On Wednesday, a 7-2 Supreme Court disagreed. At least some gun kits fit the definition that Congress set out, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court, and therefore the regulation stands. The court left open the possibility that some kits might be so far from a finished gun as to fall outside the regulation. …”

“… Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote that opinion, dissented Wednesday, saying the court was inconsistent by “rewriting” statutory text to cover ghost guns when last year it wouldn’t do so to permit regulation of bump stocks. He argued that incomplete frames or receivers—such as those that require holes to be drilled to finish the weapon’s assembly—weren’t covered by the language of the law.

“The ordinary meaning of ‘frame or receiver’ does not include objects that may be ‘converted’ into a frame or receiver,” Thomas wrote.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented separately. …”

 

[superrific]

I'd like to say that this is a measure of the Supreme Court maybe pulling back a little bit on the outcome-oriented reasoning, but it's a really technical decision that hews very closely to the specific language of the statute in question.

It's not surprising that an easy case was decided the right way. As much as the Court is sensitive to the oppression of gun buyers in this country, who have had to put up with suggestions about onerous regulations for a generation, I don't think they give a fuck about ghost guns. And the personal feelings of the justices are a key to predicting these outcomes.

Why did they take a different view of bump stocks and ghost guns? Probably because bump stocks are fun. You can go to a firing range and have some fun shooting big guns fast. And even if you don't use bump stocks per se, they don't want to do anything that might validate a crackdown on ARs, because ARs are fun. By contrast, I can't imagine the Justices see themselves, or anyone they know, buying and/or getting off on ghost guns.

 

[nycfan]

I'd like to say that this is a measure of the Supreme Court maybe pulling back a little bit on the outcome-oriented reasoning, but it's a really technical decision that hews very closely to the specific language of the statute in question.

It's not surprising that an easy case was decided the right way. As much as the Court is sensitive to the oppression of gun buyers in this country, who have had to put up with suggestions about onerous regulations for a generation, I don't think they give a fuck about ghost guns. And the personal feelings of the justices are a key to predicting these outcomes.

Why did they take a different view of bump stocks and ghost guns? Probably because bump stocks are fun. You can go to a firing range and have some fun shooting big guns fast. And even if you don't use bump stocks per se, they don't want to do anything that might validate a crackdown on ARs, because ARs are fun. By contrast, I can't imagine the Justices see themselves, or anyone they know, buying and/or getting off on ghost guns.

From coverage of the day of oral arguments, I got the impression the government did a good job convincing the justices that these are less about hobbyists and more about criminals looking for a new edge over law enforcement …

 

[superrific]

From coverage of the day of oral arguments, I got the impression the government did a good job convincing the justices that these are less about hobbyists and more about criminals looking for a new edge over law enforcement …

They didn't even have to do that. This was a facial challenge. Now I don't buy that judges actually apply the standard of "a facial challenge must fail if there is even one valid application" (i.e. the black-letter standard) because that would be impossible, but in a facial challenge, the challenger does really have to show that the regulation isn't just "more X than Y" but "X in exclusion of Y."

The plaintiffs had to show that this regulation was more or less *only* about hobbyists and given the obvious criminal implications, that was never going to work.

It shouldn't be news when an easy case is decided correctly. Sigh. In a better world, this case wouldn't have even gotten to the Supreme Court because all the circuits would have better sense than this,. Sigh.

 

[nycfan]

They didn't even have to do that. This was a facial challenge. Now I don't buy that judges actually apply the standard of "a facial challenge must fail if there is even one valid application" (i.e. the black-letter standard) because that would be impossible, but in a facial challenge, the challenger does really have to show that the regulation isn't just "more X than Y" but "X in exclusion of Y."

The plaintiffs had to show that this regulation was more or less *only* about hobbyists and given the obvious criminal implications, that was never going to work.

It shouldn't be news when an easy case is decided correctly. Sigh. In a better world, this case wouldn't have even gotten to the Supreme Court because all the circuits would have better sense than this,. Sigh.

Just noted in reference to your comment about justices deciding based more on how they feel about the issue.

 

[superrific]

Just noted in reference to your comment about justices deciding based more on how they feel about the issue.

Fair. I guess when I say "it depends on how they feel," I was referring to something different. All judges have their legal decisions influenced by what they are convinced the case is about. I mean something more profound, which is that this Supreme Court relies so extensively on their prior feelings.

That's what you see when comparing to the bump stock case. Bump stocks are every bit as much about evading law enforcement as ghost guns. And the SG's office didn't botch the bump stock case. IIRC the most talented SG since I've been following law argued that case herself and she did a good job. But she couldn't overcome the sympathy that the justices have for people who like to go to gun ranges and shoot powerful guns. I'd be shocked if Thomas, Gorsuch and Kav have never done this multiple times. None of them have bought ghost guns.

So your point is correct but also on a bit of a different plane than my analysis. You're basically assuming that the court is acting like a court, and applying usual argumentative analysis. I'm questioning whether assuming that it's actually a court (with all that implies in our country) is warranted. The first bar that the Supreme Court must clear but often has trouble doing is, "are you a jurist or an activist in robes."

 

[Bobfripp]

“… Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote that opinion, dissented Wednesday, saying the court was inconsistent by “rewriting” statutory text to cover ghost guns when last year it wouldn’t do so to permit regulation of bump stocks. He argued that incomplete frames or receivers—such as those that require holes to be drilled to finish the weapon’s assembly—weren’t covered by the language of the law.

“The ordinary meaning of ‘frame or receiver’ does not include objects that may be ‘converted’ into a frame or receiver,” Thomas wrote.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented separately. …”

Thomas and Alito dissent. I am shocked.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Supreme Court Upholds Regulation of ‘Ghost Guns’​

Justices find in 7-2 decision that federal law covers firearms kits​

GIFT LINK —> https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/sup...45?st=ZbEvzy&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink

“… The gun industry had challenged a Biden-era regulation treating ghost guns like other firearms, with the same licensing, background checks and serial number requirements. A federal appeals court in New Orleans had set aside the regulation, reasoning that weapons parts aren’t weapons and thus weren’t covered by the Gun Control Act of 1968.

On Wednesday, a 7-2 Supreme Court disagreed. At least some gun kits fit the definition that Congress set out, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court, and therefore the regulation stands. The court left open the possibility that some kits might be so far from a finished gun as to fall outside the regulation. …”

There's some good news. Also interesting that Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion and it was a 7-2. Maybe we'll see potential and start to swing on gun regulations.

 

[superrific]

There's some good news. Also interesting that Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion and it was a 7-2. Maybe we'll see potential and start to swing on gun regulations.

Very doubtful for reasons described above. It's not that interesting that Gorsuch wrote the opinion. He probably volunteered (loving as he does obscure grammatical concepts like "artifact nouns" which feature prominently in his opinion) and everyone else was happy to let him do it.

The opinion breaks as little ground as possible. It is not an opening.

 

[nycfan]

Gift link to a good primer to this term so far and the most notable (non-shadow docket/Trump emergency cases) outstanding:

—> https://wapo.st/4jgaSWN

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Gift link to a good primer to this term so far and the most notable (non-shadow docket/Trump emergency cases) outstanding:

—> https://wapo.st/4jgaSWN

I've been pretty happy so far. Much better than last term.The conservative block is actually only Alito and Thomas with the other conservatives seemingly willing to endorse some liberal/moderate positions.

The last big one for me is the direct funding of religious charter School cases in Oklahoma. Really hope we don't let politicians give our tax dollars to religious organizations. Because you know North Carolina would be handing it out too just about anybody that could spell Jesus correctly on the application.

 

[superrific]

I've been pretty happy so far. Much better than last term.The conservative block is actually only Alito and Thomas with the other conservatives seemingly willing to endorse some liberal/moderate positions.

1. They always save their real doozies until the end of the term;
2. It has been a quiet term; not that many significant cases; but they will stuck fuck a few things up.
3. The 100% reactionary bloc is Thomas and Alito. Gorsuch is 90% reactionary and Kav 55-60%. Don't kid yourself about this court. All 6 conservatives voted to give Trump immunity.
4. The "liberal/moderate" positions you refer to are nothing of the sort. They are just not BSC. I can't think of any case where a conservative voted in a way that wouldn't have been unanimous (a 9-0 or 8-1) a decade ago. Insisting on due process before horrible and adverse consequences is not liberal or moderate; it's the fundamental principle to which most of the important amendments address. The ghost gun case was only a case because of their stupidity in Bruen; a decade ago, everyone would have admitted that the ghost gun bullshit was just that. And they also fucked up the bump stock case, so they don't even have a passing grade there.

Most of the cases that garner "liberal" votes from conservatives have been cleanups of problems the conservatives made themselves through stupidly overreaching and unsupportable positions.

 

[nycfan]

Supreme Court seems likely to let religious families opt out of LGBTQ storybooks​

The lawsuit over public school story time with titles like “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” and “Love, Violet” is one of three major religious-rights cases on the high court’s docket.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/04/22/supreme-court-lgbtq-books-storytime-montgomery-maryland/?location=alert

“… At issue for the justices is whether public schools in Montgomery County, Maryland, illegally burden the First Amendment rights of parents to freely exercise their religion when children are required to participate in discussions that touch on gender and sexuality that conflict with their faith. The case, which has implications for public schools nationwide, involves the type of diversity and inclusion efforts the Trump administration has targeted on college campuses and in K-12 districts, as well as in government and private businesses.

… During more than two and a half hours of argument on Tuesday, several justices read aloud from the text of the disputed storybooks, some of which referred to drag queens and same-sex marriage.

Conservative justices repeatedly pressed the lawyer for the Maryland school system on why it could not easily accommodate the religious parents and allow their children to opt out of objectionable curriculum.

“What’s the big deal about allowing them to opt out?” asked Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

“I’m not understanding why it’s not feasible,” added Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who said he was “mystified” by the school board’s actions in the Maryland county where he grew up and still lives.

… Montgomery County expanded its English Language Arts curriculum in 2022 to include books with LGBTQ+ characters to better reflect the diversity of families in its religiously diverse and politically liberal population. The elementary school books included stories about a girl who finds that her favorite uncle’s marriage means she’s gaining another uncle, not losing one. Another tells the story of a young girl who has a crush on her female classmate.

Only two of the court’s liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — seemed to embrace the school system’s claim that allowing opt-outs would be unworkable for school officials and potentially lead to troubling outcomes.

… The parents behind the lawsuit say they are not trying to change the lesson plans or remove any books from classroom shelves. They just want to have the option of saying their children will not participate. …”

——
Unsurprising. I have sympathy for parent wanting say in what their kids learn in school.

The reality is that having kids opt out of a lesson means having to have alternative oversight for those kids while the lesson is taught. In schools stretched thin, that is a bigger hassle than the justices blithely suggest, so the likely outcome I that such lessons will be limited or avoided for largely logistical reasons. And s Kagan noted, depending on how broadly the opinion is written, we could end up with parents demanding opt out rights for everything, effectively requiring cafeteria plan lessons.

But the direction here I obviously and the issue will be how tightly they circumscribe the opt-out rights as a First Amendment matter.

 

[superrific]

Supreme Court seems likely to let religious families opt out of LGBTQ storybooks​

The lawsuit over public school story time with titles like “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” and “Love, Violet” is one of three major religious-rights cases on the high court’s docket.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/04/22/supreme-court-lgbtq-books-storytime-montgomery-maryland/?location=alert

“… At issue for the justices is whether public schools in Montgomery County, Maryland, illegally burden the First Amendment rights of parents to freely exercise their religion when children are required to participate in discussions that touch on gender and sexuality that conflict with their faith. The case, which has implications for public schools nationwide, involves the type of diversity and inclusion efforts the Trump administration has targeted on college campuses and in K-12 districts, as well as in government and private businesses.

… During more than two and a half hours of argument on Tuesday, several justices read aloud from the text of the disputed storybooks, some of which referred to drag queens and same-sex marriage.

Conservative justices repeatedly pressed the lawyer for the Maryland school system on why it could not easily accommodate the religious parents and allow their children to opt out of objectionable curriculum.

“What’s the big deal about allowing them to opt out?” asked Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

“I’m not understanding why it’s not feasible,” added Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who said he was “mystified” by the school board’s actions in the Maryland county where he grew up and still lives.

… Montgomery County expanded its English Language Arts curriculum in 2022 to include books with LGBTQ+ characters to better reflect the diversity of families in its religiously diverse and politically liberal population. The elementary school books included stories about a girl who finds that her favorite uncle’s marriage means she’s gaining another uncle, not losing one. Another tells the story of a young girl who has a crush on her female classmate.

Only two of the court’s liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — seemed to embrace the school system’s claim that allowing opt-outs would be unworkable for school officials and potentially lead to troubling outcomes.

… The parents behind the lawsuit say they are not trying to change the lesson plans or remove any books from classroom shelves. They just want to have the option of saying their children will not participate. …”

——
Unsurprising. I have sympathy for parent wanting say in what their kids learn in school.

Not this type of say. How many of those parents want the Ten Commandments plastered on the walls of schools? Can't opt-out of that.

A proper secular education is always going to conflict with a religious education. The state should be able to provide a secular education to everyone. That's the goal. Parents can supplement with their own lessons on religion should they choose. And so can their church. And they can send their kids to Christian schools if it's so important to them.

But we can't have kids being pulled out of school for important lessons like tolerance and morality.

In general, the idea that parents should control the education of their children is borderline insane. It makes no sense at all. Schools should work like corporations: the parents/stockholders can elect the board, and after the board is elected, the board manages everything.