Firearms Owners Against Crime
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito scolded his colleagues in a dissenting opinion in a gun-rights ruling, contending they ignored the Constitution and allowed the high court docket "to be manipulated in a way that should not be countenanced."
The case was brought by gun owners against New York City's restriction on carrying guns from their homes to gun ranges.
After the Supreme Court accepted the case, the city revoked the restriction then claimed the case was "moot" and should be dismissed.
The court's 6-3 majority agreed.
But Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, agreed with the plaintiffs, the New York State Rifle Association and others, that the city's "updated" measure didn't provide the needed legal clarity for someone who stopped at a restroom or a coffee shop while transporting a gun between home and a gun range.
For a case to be moot, he wrote, it "must really be dead, and as noted, that occurs only 'when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party."
"As long as the parties have a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of the litigation, the case is not moot,'" Alito wrote.
He pointed out the unintended consequences of the new precedent.
"A state enacts a law providing that any woman wishing to obtain an abortion must submit certification from five doctors that the procedure is medically necessary. After a woman sues, claiming that any requirement of physician certification is unconstitutional, the state replaces its old law with a new one requiring certification by three physicians. Would the court be required to dismiss the woman’s suit? Suppose the court, following the precedent set by today’s decision, holds that the case is moot, and suppose that the woman brings a second case challenging the new law on the same ground. If the state repeals that law and replaces it with one requiring certification by two doctors, would the second suit be moot? And what if the state responds to a third suit by enacting replacement legislation demanding certification by one doctor?" he wrote.
He said the city's travel restrictions burdened "the very right recognized [by the Supreme Court] in Heller. History provides no support for a restriction of this type."
Alito also noted the implicit threat from the city after it changed its rule and demanded the court then dismiss the case.
"If the court did not do so, they intimated, the public would realize that the court is 'motivated mainly by politics, rather than by adherence to the law,' and the court would faced the possibility of legislative reprisal."
He said the city's changes gave the petitioners "most" of what they sought, but there still were unresolved issues that the majority ruling apparently now will leave unaddressed. He said the city's change "was admittedly spurred at least in part by our grant of review."
He said the changes made by the city leaves the justices "with no clear idea where the city draws the line, and the situation is further complicated by the overlay of state law."
And, he contended, the majority ruling "provides no sound reason for holding that this case is moot."
"One might have thought that the city, having convinced the lower courts that its law was consistent with Heller, [a Supreme Court precedent] would have been willing to defend its victory in this court," he wrote. "But once we granted certiorari, both the city and the state of New York sprang into action to prevent us from deciding this case. Although the city had previously insisted that its ordinance served important public safety purposes, our grant of review apparently led to an epiphany of sorts, and the city quickly changed its ordinance. And for good measure the state enacted a law making the old New York City ordinance illegal."
https://www.wnd.com/2020/04/justice-alito-scolds-fellow-supremes-gun-rights-ruling/