SCOTUS Watch

After the holiday, the Supreme Court started a full week (there will be orders next Monday, a conference that Friday and then a lag until December) of activity with orders.  The orders are the usual bland stuff as a whole (it added a trademark case separately last Friday) but among the cases not taken was one that allowed litigation related to the Sandy Hook massacre to go on.  This was not really surprising, both because they have avoided major gun disputes generally and the fact this specific one is still only in the process of going on.  But, it got some attention.

Remington had countered that the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which generally gives gun manufacturers and sellers immunity from lawsuits “resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse” of guns by others, shields it from liability. However, the law carves out an exception that allows lawsuits to go forward when the manufacturer or seller knowingly violated state or federal law governing the sale of guns, and that violation caused the harm at issue. Remington urged the Supreme Court to grant review of the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision allowing the case to go forward, alleging that the state court had read the exception too broadly, but today the justices turned Remington down without comment.

(See link.)  I tossed in the qualifier there because there were some cases that involved guns, including a domestic violence related law (where Thomas actually spoke at oral argument for the first time in a long while) and a possession law involving undocumented immigrants that continues to pop up on orders (like this one) to send back cases to apply the ruling. The Supreme Court this term will hear a Second Amendment case involving a New York law that seems to be moot (they didn't accept an argument a change of the law made it so but will consider the matter), the first time it will give full review of such a 2A matter for about a decade.

The order list as noted has the standard stuff, including allowing the solicitor general time during certain oral arguments but not agreeing to such requests for other parties.  There is also a couple cases where the Supreme Court denied requests "for leave to proceed in forma pauperis," which would avoid the need to follow certain requirements including fees.  To give a sense of this, normally multiple copies of materials have to be submitted, but only one copy is required for prisoners.

A list of cert. denials are included with a few separated (some justice didn't take part or a request for filing as a pauper was denied), in neither cases the reasons (including reasons for not taking part) provided.  In rare cases, a justice might explain why they agree that a case should not be taken.  There is a single denial of habeas corpus, a special longshot means to obtain review at this level particularly.  Then, there is a list of mandamus denials; this is a request for the Supreme Court to order some other party to do something. A writ of prohibition (one instance) is an order to stop something. And, various requests for a lower court matter to be reconsidered was also denied.  Other odds and ends such as requests not to print an appendix, file under seal (secretly), amicus brief matters etc. were not included this time.  Again, a general glossary would be helpful. 

Anyway, there are also some important oral arguments this week involving DACA, damages for a border shooting, a potentially important (so said someone on the Strict Scrutiny podcast) racial discrimination matter and a more technical case on Wednesday.  SCOTUSBlog has the details. The first set of cases again bring up desire for video of the oral argument as well as same day audio.  I am not really that excited (though it's fine and little reason not to have it) about the latter, my main concern is that these things are available in general.  Again, argument transcripts are available same day, and lower/foreign courts have video.