More Orders: Guns and the Death Penalty

And Also: The Mets, letting the rookie play (he helped manufacture the insurance run) even if it meant they lose control of him a bit sooner, won their first game with newbie Canó (who I admit I was wary about) starting off with a HR and then knocking in the insurance run. He also made a key defensive play. DeGrom (with his five year contract) gets the win.

Current possessors of bump-stock-type devices must divest themselves of possession before the effective date of the final rule.

I was going to separately deal with the execution scheduled today but another order warrants note. The order in a "pending case" that did not at this early point stop the bump stock ban from going into place is not surprising.  To remind:

Bump stocks — the gun add-ons that can dramatically increase their rate of fire — are now officially illegal in the U.S., after a Trump administration ban took effect Tuesday. Anyone selling or owning bump stocks could face up to 10 years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000 for each violation.

What did surprise me some is that the new regulation, a mild one after yet another mass shooting, does not grandfather in existing bump stocks. As that link notes (with a link to the government website), owners now have to destroy them (instructions provided) or dropped off an the ATF office.  The "assault weapon" (since it applied only to some weapons, I put it in quotes) ban of 1994 was not as strict.  Imagine if it was. With less loopholes.

Later: And, they denied another stay, Thomas/Gorsuch dissenting, leaving a lower court the option to stay it for a few days.

===

Patrick Murphy, who was convicted under the controversial law of parties after playing lookout during a deadly store robbery, is scheduled for execution March 28, according to Texas prison spokesman Jeremy Desel.

Murphy had escaped from "a 50 year sentence from Dallas County for aggravated sexual assault" so is again not exactly a sympathetic character.  The fifteen or so year lag time is almost reasonable as far as these things go.  Nonetheless, he did not directly commit an illegal homicide.  One might not be too upset, granting the penalty as a whole is still tainted. Still, this is a capital case. You just knew something would come up to taint it.

So, it is not surprising that we (with a precedent now to back it up, but it still is gratuitous and wrong) have another case of refusing a request to have a chaplain of one's choice in the death chamber.  The free exercise problem again joined with the establishment problem of the state having a chaplain of a specific sect. This time Christianity trumps Buddhism.  This is a capital case, so attention might matter, there no need to further bad precedent.  You have a few executions.  Let people have the chaplain of their religion.  The Supreme Court has shown some respect for the free exercise of non-Christians, but this doesn't help those who think otherwise.

The application for a stay of execution of sentence of death presented to JUSTICE ALITO and by him referred to the Court is granted. The State may not carry out Murphy’s execution pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari unless the State permits Murphy’s Buddhist spiritual advisor or another Buddhist reverend of the State’s choosing to accompany Murphy in the execution chamber during the execution during the execution. 

And, (I started this earlier in the day) in a surprise, the Supreme Court DID block the state from denying him. The reasoning left something to be desired, especially given that just last month (involving a Muslim inmate, but they protected their rights in other contexts though the average person unsurprisingly thought it suspicious)  rejected just such a claim. I quoted the whole opinion.

Why the difference this time?  Kavanaugh dropped a brief footnote saying as a whole this time the request was timely.  Justice Kagan last time explained why the "timely" argument doesn't work and the footnote didn't substantively refute her.  Roberts and Alito didn't write separately here.  Thomas/Gorsuch simply said they would have denied the stay, not answering Kavanaugh either.  This is not how you should handle a capital case where you block an execution. Put aside that for some reason they only handed the order down after 9 o'clock at night again, hours after the scheduled execution time. Did strong public criticism (multiple horrified reactions after last time) affect them any?  A conservative leaning religious liberty group submitting a brief?

The end result was correct. There is some evidence that the Roberts Court is showing some care post-Kennedy.  Up to a point.

ETA: Reading over the Slate commentary of this case, it probably should be noted that -- by generally but not necessarily completely accepted rules -- we should not really assume who joins in a per curiam unless it is expressly stated.  Only three justices' views were expressly stated in this case. Two who dissented and Kavanaugh though few doubt the liberals joined to make five.

Now, this to me is a tad ridiculous.  Silence to me implies consent. In theory, since you only need five, maybe Kagan (who wrote dissent in the last case) dissented on precedential grounds here but did so silently!  But, maybe, in certain cases the inference would be wrong. Still, I think it is sensible policy. If a justice doesn't comment, they are silently going along.

(Texas eventually took an option offered by Kavanaugh [but see] and now denies any faith or spiritual advisor in the execution chamber, but allows them [equally] in the witness room. This advances the Establishment Clause value but somewhat less so the Free Exercise at issue. Both states have an execution scheduled next week. As to Alabama's policy now, who knows.)