Attention SCOTUS Shoppers: Clean up on Article III and there is a Blue-Light Special on the Second Amendment.

SCOTUS GVR's Range, sends Second Amendment to inferior court purgatory.

Today, the Supreme Court issued the "clean-up" order list. The Court GVR'd eight cases in light of Rahimi. One of them was Garland v. Range. Here, the en banc Third Circuit held that a person who committed a non-violent felony (food stamp fraud) could not be subject to a complete ban on owning a firearm. Justice Barrett brought the case up during the Rahimi oral argument. I suspected that the Court was holding Range pending Rahimi. After Rahimi was decided, the SG urged the Court to grant Range. Counsel for Range urged the Court to grant the writ. I thought the Court might sit on the issue for the summer, and figure out what to do at the long conference. No such luck. The Court, without any noted dissent, GVR'd Range.

Now, Range, other cases, and the Second Amendment, return to inferior court purgatory. And I should note that since Range was decided, the composition of the Third Circuit has changed. President Biden will have "flipped" two seats, changing the balance of the en banc court. We'll see if there are four votes for cert when this case comes back.

Bruen had a good two-year run! Alas, Rahimi placed a blue light special on the Second Amendment.

Update: I wrote that the SG recommended a GVR in Range. In fact, the government recommended a grant. I've updated the post.

Comments

[apedad]

For us non-lawyers, “A grant, vacate, remand (GVR) is a type of order issued by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court simultaneously grants a petition for certiorari, vacates the decision of the court below, and remands the case for further proceedings.”

I think Prof. Volokh actually posted a blog about this 3 – 4 years ago.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What is the rationale for doing this? Isn’t the lower court bound by its own precedent?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes, hence the point of it.

[Drewski]

Say SCOTUS takes three cases on a similar question, but two of them are too fact-bound to consolidate. It can decide one, then return the other two to the lower courts to re-do. The lower courts are bound by the new SCOTUS precedent. (Sometimes the lower courts decide the new rule doesn’t apply to a GVRed case and reach the same result as before.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

The reversal of Cheveron may be far more significant that people realize. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/student-aid-policy/2024/07/02/supreme-court-decision-weakens-education-department

They’re right — Congress hasn’t reauthorized the Higher Ed Act — only extended its funding — and almost all of higher ed policy is coming out of ED directly. Well if that ends, things are going to get VERY interesting because the ED regional offices do not agree with each other and if the test becomes what Congress itself has said, things will get fun.

I’m thinking about ADA — there is what Region 1 says, the exact opposite being said by Region 2, and something yet different said by Congress in the reauthorization. A lot of colleges in Region 1 (1st Circuit) are going to get a cold shower wakeup call..

[Noscitur a sociis]

I find the histrionics over this as silly and unbecoming as they are groundless, but this does seem like a remarkable disposition. The Supreme Court’s going to need to have the final say on this issue at some point, and I’m not sure whose interests are served by creating a couple years more of uncertainty on it.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Further, Josh should be more current with his metaphors. How many people still know what a blue light special even is?

I mean I get it because I was born a poor black child. I remember the days, sittin’ on the porch with my family, singin’ and dancin’ down in Mississippi.

[mike petrik]

With your neighbor Steve Martin, no doubt.

[Michael P]

No, his neighbor Joe Biden from across the tracks took him to K-Mart to take advantage of blue light specials, in between participating in all those civil rights marches.

[mike petrik]

Sure, but Martin certainly accompanied them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lduFFNqBFPs

[hobie]

Yes, this court seems to kick the can down the road more than any other court I’ve seen…unless it is a conservative cause, of course. In my view we have two branches of government that cannot do their jobs, and an ascendant Executive that is being made all powerful. This all smacks to me as being planned, but I cannot figure the ends of it

[Dr. Ed 2]

The dancing blue light TV ad campaign was in 2014 so anyone over the age of 25 has a living memory of it.

The blue light specials were always overpriced junk but the dancing bulbs was 2014. https://www.ispot.tv/ad/7WTu/kmart-blue-light-member-special-dance-party

[Currentsitguy]

Best, most unfortunate Blue Light Specials I ever heard was back in the 80’s while at Kmart.

“Attention Kmart Shoppers. Now in the women’s department, lady’s underwear, half off!”

[Dr. Ed 2]

Who says that wasn’t intentional? It worked, didn’t it?

[Brett Bellmore]

I kind of doubt that, since most women’s underwear is purchased by women, not men.

[Nemo_Va]

I still think Rahimi is not as limiting and restriction approving as others think. The next to last paragraph is rather strongly worded.

Something along the idea of cannot carry while smoking weed or high or drinking or drunk might be covered by the “credible threat and temporary disarmament” if a law passed prohibiting carrying when drinking or smoking. On an individual basis a person, if arrested for drunk in public and found carrying, could potentially be ordered to not carry while drinking or drunk after a hearing.

But there would be arguments that drinking/smoking and carrying were permissible if they were not intoxicated or stoned.

If the case were dealing with a domestic violence type matter the decision near requires a full hearing (found by a court to pose a credible threat) which requires due process (notice and opportunity to be heard) and counsel (appointed if appropriate) where a person is to be deprived of a Constitutionally listed right, and it would still be required to be some type of credible threat and temporary.

Nemo

Last paragraphs from Rahimi.

In Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, this Court did not “un-
dertake an exhaustive historical analysis . . . of the full scope of the Second Amendment.” Bruen, 597 U. S., at 31.

Nor do we do so today. Rather, we conclude only this: An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

18 UNITED STATES v. RAHIMI

Opinion of the Court

is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceed-
ings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.[/QUOTE]