SCOTUS OT 2019 | Commonwealth Second Amendment

Every year the Supreme Court of the United States receives thousands of petitions asking the court to review and reverse decisions by lower federal and state courts.The court typically grants certiorori review to fewer than 100 of those petitions each term. The high court has not granted review in a significant Second Amendment case since 2008 and 2010 when the court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess arms for lawful purposes.

Following the dismissal of NYSRPA as moot, the court rescheduled ten Second Amendment petitions for conference. It is likely that the court will grant cert in at least one of these petitions. In the meantime, they continues to relist the petitions.

Petition	Status	Appeal From	Question(s) Presented	Notes
Petition	Status	Appeal From	Question(s) Presented	Notes
Petitions Submitted:
Petitions Granted:		None
Pending or Possible Petitions:
Mance v. Whitaker 18-663	Relisted for 05/28/2020	CA5	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.	Attorney Alan Gura for petitioners.
Pena v. Lindley 18-843	Relisted for 05/28/2020	CA9	The question presented is whether California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act,” Cal. Penal Code § 31900 et seq., violates the Second Amendment by banning handguns of the kind in common use for traditional lawful purposes.	Comm2A participated as a cert amici Attorneys Alan Gura and Donald E.J. Kilmer for petitoners
Rogers v. Grewal 18-824	Relisted for 05/28/2020	CA3	Whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense. 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.	Right-to-carry case challenging New Jersey's highly restrictive "justifiable need' requirement. Attorneys Daniel L. Schmutter & David H. Thompson for petitioners
Gould v. Lipson 18-1273	Relisted for 05/28/2020	CA1	Whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense. 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.	Comm2A right-to-carry case against Boston and Brookline Attorneys David D. Jensen & David H. Thompson for petitioners
Ciolek v. State of New Jersey 19-114	Relisted for 05/28/2020	Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division	The question presented is whether the legislative requirement of“ justifiable need” for a permit to carry a handgun in public violates the Second Amendment.	Right-to-carry case challenging New Jersey's highly restrictive "justifiable need' requirement. Petition filed pro se
Cheeseman v. Polillo 19-27	Relisted for 05/28/2020	Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division	The question presented is whether States can limit the ability to bear handguns outside the home to only those found to have asufficiently heightened “need” for self-protection	Right-to-carry case challenging New Jersey's highly restrictive "justifiable need' requirement. Attorney David D. Jensen for petitioner
Worman v. Healey 19-404	Relisted for 05/28/2020	CA1	Does Massachusetts’ ban unconstitutionally infringe the individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment?	Comm2A organized challenge to the Massachusetts assault weapons ban. We've also filed a cert stage amicus brief.
Malpasso v. Pallozzi 19-423	Relisted for 05/28/2020	CA4	Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit typical, law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense in any manner.	Right-to-carry case challenging Maryland's highly restrictive “Good and Substantial Reason” requirement. Attorney Paul D. Clement for Petitioners
Culp v. Raoul 19-487	Relisted for 05/28/2020>	CA7	Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms requires that the State of Illinois allow qualified non-residents to apply for an Illinois concealed carry license.
Wilson v Cook County 19-704	Relisted for 05/28/2020	CA7	Whether the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution 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.” Whether the Seventh Circuit’s method of analyzing Second Amendment issues – a three-part test which asks whether (1) a regulation bans 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 this Court’s holding in Heller	Challenge to the Cook County, IL assault weapons ban.
Rodriguez v. San Jose 19-1057	Distributed for Conference of 04/24/2020 Response deadline extended to 06/22/2020	CA9	Whether the Fourth Amendment allows an exception to its warrant requirement for so-called “community caretaking” where the alleged danger to the community has been resolved and the premises to be searched and items then seized do not contain or pose an immediate threat making it impossible to ob-tain a timely warrant? Whether issue preclusion can bar a claim for deprivation of a constitutional right where the prior decision discussing the constitutional issue did not depend on resolving the merits of that issue, found state-law procedures remained that could moot the claimed infringement, and thus could not have been further reviewed in this Court given that the constitutional claim would be seen as unripe and potentially avoided by adequate and independent state grounds? Whether this Court should exercise its supervisory powers to review the improper circumvention of Second Amendment protections in the Ninth Circuit or, at a minimum, hold this case for No. 18-280, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York?
Decisions:
Beers v. Barr 19-864	GVR	CA3	May the government permanently deny a mentally healthy, responsible, and law-abiding citizen of the United States the opportunity to recover his Second Amendment rights solely because of a long-ago involuntary commitment?	CA3 to dismiss as moot. Petitioner is no longer a prohibited person.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. NYC 18-280	Dismissed as Moot Argument held 12/02/2019 Transcript Audio Opinion	CA2	Whether the City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.	Comm2A has filed a merits amicus brief authored by attorney Alan Gura. Attorney Paul Clement represents petitioners.
Petitions Denied:
Guedes v. BATFE 19-296	Petition denied 03/02/2020	CADC	Whether Chevron deference, rather than the rule of lenity, takes precedence in the interpretation of statutory language defining an element of various crimes where such language also has administrative applications? Whether, if Chevron deference applies and takes priority over the rule of lenity, such deference can be waived in the course of litigation and on appeal? Whether, if Chevron deference applies and cannot be waived, Chevron should be overruled?
Medina v. Barr 19-287	Petition denied 12/09/2019	CADC	Whether the Second Amendment secures Jorge Medina’s right to possess arms, notwithstanding his conviction for making a false statement to a lending institution 29 years ago.	Medina seeks the restoration of rights following a minor, non-violent felony. Attorney Alan Gura for petitioner
Lopez v. Massachusetts 18-8739	Petition Denied 10/15/2019	Appeals Court of Massachusetts	Does the Due Process Clause permit the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to shift the burden to criminal defendants charged with unauthorized possession of a firearm and/or ammunition to show authorization for possession?
Remington Arms v. Soto 19-168	Petition Denied 11/12/2019	Supreme Court of Connecticut	The question presented is whether the PLCAA’s predicate exception encompasses alleged violations of broad, generally applicable state statutes, such as the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, which forbids “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(a).

Commonwealth Second Amendment

Filter results:

Supreme Court October Term 2019

Petitions Submitted:

Petitions Granted:

Pending or Possible Petitions:

Decisions:

Petitions Denied:

About Comm2A:

Contact Us