In a brief order on today's order list the Supreme Court dashed the hopes of gun rights advocates who hoped to have two lawyers and additional time arguing their cause before the Supreme Court when it hears arguments in the historic case D.C. v. Heller March 18.
Without explanation, the Court denied the motion of Texas Solicitor General R. Ted Cruz for argument time on the side of Alan Gura of Gura & Possessky, who has argued the pro-Second Amendment position from the start of the case.
But the Court did agree to give Solicitor General Paul Clement 15 minutes to argue, in addition to the 30 minutes for each side in the case.
The Court's action can be read as a small but not insignificant victory for supporters of D.C.'s handgun control ordinance at issue in the case.
Cruz had argued to the Court that he should be heard on behalf of 31 states favoring a broad view of the Second Amendment, because Solicitor General Paul Clement's brief in the case is "contrary" to the position of gun rights supporters. While Clement supports an "individual right" view of the Second Amendment, he advocates a standard of review that critics say will allow too many gun regulations to stand. Clement also urged vacating and remanding the lower court ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in the case, the first ever to strike down a gun regulation on Second Amendment grounds. Walter Dellinger of O'Melveny & Myers, who will argue in defense of the D.C. handgun ban, had opposed the Texas motion, but supported Clement's request for added argument time.
It is very common for the Court to say yes to a request from the solicitor general for argument time as amicus curiae no matter where he stands. As for states, in recent years they have won argument time with greater frequency four times last term alone though this term the success rate has been lower. One factor working against Texas in the D.C. case is that states are not unanimous on the Second Amendment issue; New York, joined by Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico, filed a brief on the gun control side.
So, even though Clement's brief lends support to both sides, the net effect of today's Court action is that the justices will hear 45 minutes of advocacy from those who want the lower court ruling eliminated, and 30 minutes from those who want it upheld.
If I were arguing this case, I would insist that the Court examine each quote and comment, by either side, with a level of scrutiny that determine whether it paints the whole Elephant, or, simply tints the Toenails.
Posted by: Gordon DeSpain | March 05, 2008 at 12:44 AM
Nothing in this case appears as one would expect it should. The supposed pro-gun brief submitted by Congress notes the difference between "militia" and "the people". "The people" only get to possess "protected arms". Brief for Amici Curiae 55 Members of the US Senate, The President of the US Senate, and 250 Members of the US House in Support of Respondent, at 7. A great many people whose opinions are otherwise have signed this document.
I expect the court to address narrowly the issue before it and nothing other.
JMK
Posted by: Jeffrey M. Klopotic | February 26, 2008 at 11:19 PM
//////[quote]The appearance of unfairness by the Court is now certain. 45 minutes for the Petitioner and only 30 minutes for the Respondent. Even a 5th grader knows that isn't impartial.[/quote]
That appears unfair to the casual observer, but you forgot to note that the Petitioner 'supported' this.////
My apologies, I did not mean to post the above. After taking a second look at the comment above, I'm not exactly sure of the context. He could have been talking about 'unfair' to the other side. :)
Posted by: David M. Bennett | February 26, 2008 at 07:32 PM
Best thing is, when the court decides for the individual right, the anti's can't yell 'foul' as they had an advantage in 'proving' their point.
Posted by: DonW | February 26, 2008 at 01:10 PM
[quote]The appearance of unfairness by the Court is now certain. 45 minutes for the Petitioner and only 30 minutes for the Respondent. Even a 5th grader knows that isn't impartial.[/quote]
That appears unfair to the casual observer, but you forgot to note that the Petitioner 'supported' this.
Posted by: David M. Bennett | February 26, 2008 at 10:15 AM
As said on the Of Arms and Men blog:
[quote]The appearance of unfairness by the Court is now certain. 45 minutes for the Petitioner and only 30 minutes for the Respondent. Even a 5th grader knows that isn't impartial.[/quote]
Posted by: Big Boy | February 25, 2008 at 05:45 PM