The big news from this week is that the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the case arising from the Sandy Hook massacre—Remington v. Soto. As I’ve written about (here and here), the Court might have been concerned about vehicle issues with the petition. The petition raised a question about whether the federal law immunizing gun manufacturers in most situations, the Protection for Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, applied to these facts. Because the case came up from an interlocutory ruling, there was some question about the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. But, in any event, the case may now proceed through discovery and to trial. More surprising to me than the fact that the Court denied review was the fact that there was no noted dissent from the denial.

I’ve also added one more case to the chart: Pennsylvania v. Hicks. The petition was filed a little over a month ago, but I didn’t initially include it because firearms are only tangentially involved. But, because it raises a question about how the presence of firearms affects law enforcement’s ability to conduct investigatory stops, and with increasingly loosened restrictions on public carry, I thought it worth keeping an eye on.

We also have our first briefing deadline extended into the New Year, ensuring that 2020 will bring just as much debate over guns as 2019 did.

Last week was another relatively quiet week on the gun docket. A few briefing deadlines were extended, and we got one new firearms-related cert petition this week in a case seeking GVR (grant, vacate, and remand; a form of summarily sending a case back to the lower court to consider in light of a recent Supreme Court case or other intervening change in law). That case argues GVR is warranted in light of last term’s Rehaif decision requiring the government to prove that an individual prohibited from possessing guns knew the status that made his possession unlawful (here, his particular immigration status).

One highlight for the week: the case arising from the Sandy Hook massacre—Remington v. Soto—which I’ve written about a couple of times (here and here), goes to its first conference this Friday. It’s possible, though unlikely, that we’ll hear news about the Court’s decision to hear the case or not in the orders coming next Tuesday after the conference. (Monday’s a federal holiday next week, so no orders then.) It’s more likely we’ll have to wait a little longer if the Court is inclined to hear the case as the Court increasingly relies on the practice of relisting a case for multiple conferences in the event it’s going to grant review.

There was a curious exchange in the most recent cases testing the boundaries of Title VII’s proscription against sex discrimination in employment. In R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, an employee who alleges she was fired for identifying as a transgender woman claims that that adverse action violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Much of the focus in the oral arguments for Harris Funeral Homes, and a set of closely-related sexual orientation discrimination cases heard that same day, centered on the text of the statute. No doubt part of this emphasis arose from the plaintiffs’ strategic calculation that a tight textual argument may be enough to sway one of the Court’s staunchest textualists, Justice Neil Gorsuch, even if he may not be a natural ally in these cases. But some of his questioning raised concerns that he may, in the end, be only a “faint-hearted textualist”—much as Justice Scalia confessed that “in a crunch” he might have “prove[d] a faint-hearted originalist.”

Although the Supreme Court issued no new orders this week, there’s been some movement in the cases pending before the Court. Below isthe updated graph with the now-current status of the high court’s gun docket.

We’re excited to announce a new blog feature that will be a recurring Monday fixture of the blog throughout the Supreme Court’s Term. Each week, we will provide an up-to-date run down of where things stand with the Court’s firearms law and Second Amendment docket. To that end, each Monday will feature an updated chart below based on action taken at the Court throughout the prior week, including new petitions for certiorari that have been filed, Court action on currently pending petitions, changes in deadlines or notations that a case has been set for conference or relisted, etc. We’ll do our best to ensure accuracy, but if you notice anything missing or outdated, please feel free to let us know at firearmslaw@law.duke.edu.

Last week, several plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review a Seventh Circuit decision upholding Illinois’s refusal to allow most non-residents to apply for a concealed-carry license. Here’s from the Question Presented:

This Court has held that the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008). Illinois prohibits the non-residents of 45 states from applying for an Illinois concealed carry license, regardless of their individual qualifications and training.

 The question presented is:

Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms requires that the State of Illinois allow qualified non-residents to apply for an Illinois concealed carry license.

The response is currently due November 14, 2019. Like its other pending Second Amendment cases, the Court may very well decide to hold Culp until it resolves New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York.

As the Supreme Court starts its new Term, with one Second Amendment case docketed (for now), it seems like a good time to review the outstanding petitions awaiting action at the Court. These petitions raise a variety of Second Amendment and firearms-related issues, including important questions of statutory interpretation and the scope of agency discretion. I’ve previously written about the recent requests for Supreme Court review (here and here) and, surprisingly or not, many of the petitions highlighted there–more than four months ago–have yet to be acted on.

Below are the petitions outstanding at the Court (sorted by date the petition was filed). Note that some of these may be resolved on Monday when orders from the Long Conference are expected.

In Ezell v. City of Chicago, the Seventh Circuit concluded that it had “to follow the Court’s lead in resolving questions about the scope of the Second Amendment by consulting its original public meaning as both a starting point and an important constraint on the analysis.” In other words, the Seventh Circuit thought it was bound to an originalist methodology in assessing Second Amendment claims. In his concurring opinion in Kisor v. Wilkie last term, Justice Gorsuch may have cast some doubt on such a strong assumption.