John Elwood reviews this week’s relists.

If these weeks in lockdown all are beginning to feel the same to you, you’re not alone: The torpor has spread to the relist rolls as well. This week, there was very little movement. There were no new relists. With one exception, all of last week’s relists are back. Most notably, all 10 Second Amendment relists are back, suggesting that the justices are still choosing among them (or perhaps writing an opinion dissenting from denial of cert, although I consider that less likely).

Only one case did not make it back this week: Wexford Health v. Garrett, 19-867, involving whether a prisoner may cure his failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act by filing an amended complaint after his release from prison. The court denied cert, but Justice Clarence Thomas was moved enough to write an opinion dissenting from the denial, acknowledging a circuit split and arguing that the issue “deserves our review.”

That’s all for this week. Tune in Tuesday to see whether the court will be considering one or more potentially blockbuster firearm cases next fall. Until then, stay safe!

 

New Relists

Really?

Returning Relists

Andrus v. Texas, 18-9674
Issue: Whether the standard for assessing ineffective assistance of counsel claims, announced in Strickland v. Washington, fails to protect the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and the 14th Amendment right to due process when, in death-penalty cases involving flagrantly deficient performance, courts can deny relief following a truncated “no prejudice” analysis that does not account for the evidence amassed in a habeas proceeding and relies on a trial record shaped by trial counsel’s ineffective representation.
(rescheduled before the November 1, 2019, and November 8, 2019, conferences; relisted after the November 15, 2019, November 22, 2019, December 6, 2019, December 13, 2019, January 10, January 17, January 24, February 21, February 28, March 6, March 20, March 27, April 3, April 17, April 24, May 1 and May 15 conferences)

United States v. California, 19-532
Issue: Whether provisions of California law that, with certain limited exceptions, prohibit state law-enforcement officials from providing federal immigration authorities with release dates and other information about individuals subject to federal immigration enforcement, and restrict the transfer of aliens in state custody to federal immigration custody, are preempted by federal law or barred by intergovernmental immunity.
(relisted after the January 10, January 17, March 6, March 20, March 27, April 3, April 17, April 24, May 1 and May 15 conferences)

Mance v. Barr, 18-663
Issue: Whether prohibiting interstate handgun sales, facially or as applied to consumers whose home jurisdictions authorize such transactions, violates the Second Amendment and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.
(relisted after the May 1 and May 15 conferences)

Rogers v. Grewal, 18-824
Issues: (1) Whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense; and (2) whether the government may deny categorically the exercise of the right to carry a firearm outside the home to typical law-abiding citizens by conditioning the exercise of the right on a showing of a special need to carry a firearm.
(relisted after the May 1 and May 15 conferences)

Pena v. Horan, 18-843
Issue: Whether California’s Unsafe Handgun Act violates the Second Amendment by banning handguns of the kind in common use for traditional lawful purposes.
(relisted after the May 1 and May 15 conferences)

Gould v. Lipson, 18-1272
Issues: (1) Whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense and (2) whether the government may deny categorically the exercise of the right to carry a firearm outside the home to typical law-abiding citizens by conditioning the exercise of the right on a showing of a special need to carry a firearm.
(relisted after the May 1 and May 15 conferences)

Cheeseman v. Polillo, 19-27
Issue: Whether states can limit the ability to bear handguns outside the home to only those found to have a sufficiently heightened “need” for self-protection.
(relisted after the May 1 and May 15 conferences)

Ciolek v. New Jersey, 19-114
Issue: Whether the legislative requirement of “justifiable need,” which, as defined, does not include general self-defense, for a permit to carry a handgun in public violates the Second Amendment.
(relisted after the May 1 and May 15 conferences)

Worman v. Healey, 19-404
Issue: Whether Massachusetts’ ban on the possession of firearms and ammunition magazines for lawful purposes unconstitutionally infringes the individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.
(relisted after the May 1 and May 15 conferences)

Malpasso v. Pallozzi, 19-423
Issue: In a challenge to Maryland’s handgun carry-permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense.
(relisted after the May 1 and May 15 conferences)

Culp v. Raoul, 19-487
Issue: Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms requires Illinois to allow qualified nonresidents to apply for an Illinois concealed-carry license.
(relisted after the May 1 and May 15 conferences)

Wilson v. Cook County, 19-704
Issues: (1) Whether the Second Amendment allows a local government to prohibit law-abiding residents from possessing and protecting themselves and their families with a class of rifles and ammunition magazines that are “in common use at [this] time” and are not “dangerous and unusual”; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit’s method of analyzing Second Amendment issues – a three-part test that asks whether a regulation bans (1) weapons that were common at the time of ratification or (2) those that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia and (3) whether law-abiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense – is consistent with the Supreme Court’s holding in District of Columbia v. Heller.
(relisted after the May 1 and May 15 conferences)

Posted in Worman v. Healey, U.S. v. California, Andrus v. Texas, Malpasso v. Pallozzi, Culp v. Raoul, Wilson v. Cook County, Illinois, Mance v. Barr, Rogers v. Grewal, Pena v. Horan, Cheeseman v. Polillo, Ciolek v. New Jersey, Gould v. Lipson, Featured, Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended Citation: John Elwood, Status Quo Watch, SCOTUSblog (May. 19, 2020, 4:52 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/05/status-quo-watch-4/