New York’s Second Amendment makes headlines in the November debate calendar


Scottus News

Gun rights go back to court. (Popel Arseniy via Shutterstock)

Supreme Court Monday Announced the timetable for the November debate meeting of the justices, Starting from November 1st and continuing until November 10th. The justices will hear oral arguments in nine cases within six days, including one of the most high-profile cases to date, namely the challenge to New York. The law requires that anyone who wants to carry a gun in the state must show adequate Reason. In that situation, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Brunn, Will be debated on Wednesday, November 3.

The court did not indicate whether it will listen to oral arguments over the phone as it has been due to the COVID-19 pandemic since May 2020, or whether it will return to court for face-to-face arguments.However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Announced on friday Due to the pandemic “and the latest public health guidelines”, it will hold all oral debates remotely in September and October.

The following is a complete list of cases scheduled for debate at the November meeting:

Thompson v Clark (November 1): Whether the plaintiff seeking to recover the suspected unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment under the Federal Civil Rights Law must prove that the criminal proceedings ended in a “non-contradictory” manner to his innocence, or whether he ended in a positive manner to show his innocence.

Sheehan v Ramirez (November 1st): In a case involving a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, a death row inmate conducted a new hearing and requested a new trial of another death row inmate. The judge will weigh the 2012 Affects the general rule in Martinez v. Ryan that the Federal Court cannot consider evidence outside of the state court records when reviewing the state inmate’s post-conviction relief request.

Houston Community College System v. Wilson (November 2): Does the First Amendment restrict the power of local governments to condemn their members?

Badgerow v. Walters (November 2): Does the Federal Court have the power to confirm or cancel an arbitration award in accordance with Articles 9 and 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, which stipulates the procedures for the enforcement and cancellation of an arbitration award, but the only basis for this power is The potential dispute involves a federal issue.

New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Brunn (November 3): Whether New York’s rejection of the plaintiff’s application for a concealed carrying permit for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

FBI v. Fazaga (November 8): Do the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act outweigh the privileges of state secrets, allow the government to prevent the release of sensitive national security information in litigation, and give the federal district courts the power to resolve (privately) and do not need All parties are present) A lawsuit brought by members of the Muslim community in Southern California against the FBI.

Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M (November 8): Whether copyright registration can only be invalid based on the error when the registrant actually knows the error when submitting the registration, or whether the registrant has sufficient presumption knowledge of the error.

Pivotal Software v. California Superior Court (November 9): Does the “discovery-suspension clause” of the “Private Securities Litigation Reform Act” require (as the name suggests) to suspend discovery while the motion to dismiss is pending?[i]n Any private litigation arising under the Securities Act of 1933 is applicable to private cases in federal and state courts, or only to private cases in federal courts. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose lawyers contribute to SCOTUSblog in various capacities, is counsel to the respondents in this case.]

City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising (November 10): Does Austin’s “Logo Code” allow companies to install digital signs on site, but prohibit the installation of digital signs “off-site”. Does it violate the First Amendment?

This article is Originally published in Howe on the Court.



Source link