http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/05/relist-watch-103/
There is only one new relist this week – but oh, what a relist it is. Peruta v. California, 16-894, asks whether the Second Amendment entitles citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense – including concealed carry when carrying firearms openly is forbidden by state law. Under California law, openly carrying a handgun outside the home is generally prohibited, but concealed carry is permissible with a license. Applicants for concealed-carry permits must demonstrate “good cause” to obtain a license, which some county sheriffs (the relevant decision-makers) interpret to include a desire to carry a handgun for self-defense. The San Diego County Sheriff, however, defines “good cause” to require a showing of a particularized need for self-defense. Petitioners, a group of unsuccessful applicants (and potential applicants discouraged from applying by the sheriff’s interpretation) challenged that interpretation under the Second Amendment. The district court rejected their claims. But the majority of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, held that the policy unconstitutionally infringed applicants’ Second Amendment rights. The majority of an en banc panel reached the opposite conclusion in an opinion by Judge William Fletcher, holding that the sheriff may deny concealed-carry licenses on any terms he chooses because there is no independent constitutional right to the concealed carrying of a firearm. (Thanks to the 9th Circuit’s unusual en banc procedures, the en banc panel excluded O’Scannlain.)
Four times, Peruta has been rescheduled – a procedure that, despite the court’s modest explanatory efforts, remains largely shrouded in mystery. It may be that the court was moving the case forward incrementally to ensure that the case was not considered at conference until the court had its full complement of members. In any event, the court relisted Peruta for the first time, which is good news for petitioners’ counsel, who include former solicitor general Paul Clement.
There is only one new relist this week – but oh, what a relist it is. Peruta v. California, 16-894, asks whether the Second Amendment entitles citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense – including concealed carry when carrying firearms openly is forbidden by state law. Under California law, openly carrying a handgun outside the home is generally prohibited, but concealed carry is permissible with a license. Applicants for concealed-carry permits must demonstrate “good cause” to obtain a license, which some county sheriffs (the relevant decision-makers) interpret to include a desire to carry a handgun for self-defense. The San Diego County Sheriff, however, defines “good cause” to require a showing of a particularized need for self-defense. Petitioners, a group of unsuccessful applicants (and potential applicants discouraged from applying by the sheriff’s interpretation) challenged that interpretation under the Second Amendment. The district court rejected their claims. But the majority of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, held that the policy unconstitutionally infringed applicants’ Second Amendment rights. The majority of an en banc panel reached the opposite conclusion in an opinion by Judge William Fletcher, holding that the sheriff may deny concealed-carry licenses on any terms he chooses because there is no independent constitutional right to the concealed carrying of a firearm. (Thanks to the 9th Circuit’s unusual en banc procedures, the en banc panel excluded O’Scannlain.)
Four times, Peruta has been rescheduled – a procedure that, despite the court’s modest explanatory efforts, remains largely shrouded in mystery. It may be that the court was moving the case forward incrementally to ensure that the case was not considered at conference until the court had its full complement of members. In any event, the court relisted Peruta for the first time, which is good news for petitioners’ counsel, who include former solicitor general Paul Clement.
