Mooting Corona Cases Before They Reach the Supreme Court

With an increasingly-conservative Supreme Court, progressives have recognized the importance of avoidance: keep important cases away from the Supreme Court to avoid a conservative ruling. This term, New York City took deliberate steps to moot a pending Second Amendment. challenge . The City was eager to defend the law before the Second Circuit, and no doubt agreed with its constitutionality. But the Court decided to play keep-away with the Supreme Court. That strategy was prudent, though likely short-lived. Soon enough, the Supreme Court will grant one or more of the oft-relisted cases . But New York will live to fight another day. In 2017, the D.C. Attorney General declined to appeal Wrenn v. D.C. , another Second Amendment case. The D.C. Circuit declared unconstitutional the District’s conceal-carry law. The A.G. stated that the law was constitutional. But worried about an adverse Supreme Court decision: "Public safety is, and has always been, my paramount concern. I continue to believe the District’s ‘good reason’ requirement is a common-sense, and constitutional, gun regulation. However, we must reckon with the fact that an adverse decision by the Supreme Court could have wide-ranging negative effects not just on District residents, but on the country as a whole." We have seen a similar keep-away strategy in the Corona litigation. In March, the Pennsylvania Governor deemed firearm stores "non-life-sustaining businesses." The state was eager to defend that decision before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. But, as the case was on track for an emergency application to the […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.