Home > Supreme Court October Term 2019

Supreme Court October Term 2019

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.

That is likely to change this term. The court has already granted review in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. NYC and is holding many more. Favorable decisions in any of these cases will likely open up new legal avenues to challenge the firearms laws and licensing practices in the Commonwealth.

Petition
Status
Appeal From
Question(s) Presented
Notes
Petition
Status
Appeal From
Question(s) Presented
Notes

Petitions Submitted:

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. NYC
18-280
Submitted
Argument held 12/02/2019
Transcript
Audio
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 Granted:

None

Pending or Possible Petitions: (i.e. the 'Shadow' Docket)
Mance v. Whitaker
18-663
Distributed for Conference of 04/12/2019
Not relisted
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
Distributed for Conference of 04/12/2019
Not relisted
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
Distributed for Conference of 05/23/2019
Not relisted
CA3
  1. Whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense.
  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.

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
Distributed for Conference of 06/06/2019
Not relisted
CA1
  1. Whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense.
  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.

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
Distributed for Conference of 10/01/2019
Not relisted
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
Distributed for Conference of 10/18/2019
Not relisted
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
Guedes v. BATFE
19-296
Distributed for Conference of 01/10/2020
Not relisted
CADC
  1. 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?
  2. 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?
  3. Whether, if Chevron deference applies and cannot be waived, Chevron should be overruled?
Worman v. Healey
19-404
Distributed for Conference of 01/10/2020
Not relisted
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
Distributed for Conference of 01/24/2020
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
Response due 01/13/2020
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
Response extension requested to 02/03/2020
CA7
  1. 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.”
  2. 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.

Petitions Denied:
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).
Back to top