Sniping Continues in Gun Case

In this Legal Times story this week and in a BLT post on Friday, we reported on continued wrangling over how and whether to divide up the argument time before the Supreme Court in the Second Amendment gun rights case D.C. v. Heller. Solicitor General Paul Clement is seeking 15 minutes of argument time over and above the 30 minutes allotted for D.C.'s defense of its handgun ordinance and the 30 minutes for the challengers to the law. Alan Gura, lawyer for the challengers, says he does not want Clement's argument time to come out his half-hour, instead agreeing to allow Texas Solicitor General R. Ted Cruz to take 10 of his 30 minutes on behalf of 31 states on his side.

Not so fast, says Walter Dellinger of O'Melveny & Myers, who is arguing on behalf of the District of Columbia. In a filing with the Court late Friday, he opposed Texas' request to divide argument time, in part arguing that if Texas gets time, then any state in any future case could also seek time based on the possible impact of a case on its laws. Offering a peek into his own argument before the Court, Dellinger also argues that in fact his own position best protects the interest of the states such as Texas from the interference of federal judges. Dellinger says it his "understanding of the Second Amendment that protects state laws from federal oversight and revision." Texas, in Dellinger's view, is arguing that the Second Amendment should allow the federal judiciary to limit state prerogatives.

Another round of filings might come before the Court sorts it all out. Luckily, there is still time; argument is set for March 18.

Comments

[Big Boy]

Giving the Solicitor General any time at all is unfair. The District is quite capable of representing any governmental interest(s). If the Supreme Court sets up a 45 minutes for the Petitioner (and its "little friend") vs. 30 minutes for the Respondent oral argument and then decides to support D.C. or the S.G., the stink of a "fix is in" will never wash off. And it shouldn't.