The case of District of Columbia v. Heller is barely at the Supreme Court's starting gate, yet nearly everyone involved has a growing sense that this will be the Big One.
I never heard Parker v DC referred to that way. Did Law.com goof?
I wonder if the court will actually agree to hear this?
The most disturbing statement for me:
"It will take an eternity to resolve."
I don't have that much time. Neither do my children. In the mean time, people are dying and their lives are being destroyed.
You "incrementalists" are going to have to do a lot better than that if you want us "extremists" to tone down the rhetoric.
Not a lawyer here so I could be wrong...
ReplyDeleteThe change of naming has to do with the rules of naming USSC court cases.
Heller was the one who had standing in Parker V. DC.
The appellate is named first in USSC cases.
DC is appealing, Heller was the only one with standing, ergo, the DC V. Heller case name.
What a farce.
ReplyDeleteI does not take an eternity to decide the meaning of 27 words, especially with the intent so clearly preserved in historical documents, and echoed in states' constitutions.
This sounds more along the lines of thought of Sarah Brady's "60 years of precedent" remark. The courts are not the final answer, and like every human being on the face of the Earth, they are inseparable from their prejudices. The fact that they have not challenged the constitutionality of disarmament law en masse reveals this.
If Congress was so inclined, they could begin challenging unconstitutional disarmament next week simply by passing laws that invalidate parts of the NFA or the GCA. What would the courts say, that the new laws are unconstitutional? Give me a break.
Anonymous above has it right. Mr. Gura brought his suit on behalf of several different plaintiffs, whose rights were being infringed by the D.C. gun ban in a variety of different ways, in an attempt to get around the D.C. Circuit's unusually tough (and dubious) standing requirements adopted in earlier cases.
ReplyDeleteIt worked: the D.C. Circuit panel majority in Parker v. D.C. held that even under the circuit's questionable prior standing holdings, one plaintiff, Mr. Heller, clearly had standing. Thus the majority was able to reach the merits of the Second Amendment challenge. The case is accordingly being recaptioned with Heller's name in the U.S. Supreme Court.
As Anonymous notes, another Supreme Court rule is that the petitioner (the party that lost below and is requesting that SCOTUS reverse the judgment) is always listed first, regardless of whether that party was the plaintiff or defendant below. Thus, the petitioner here is D.C., who lost in the circuit court of appeals, and the respondent is Heller.
Thus, D.C. v. Heller is the name of the case in the Supreme Court, and if the Court grants D.C.'s certiorari petition and hears the case, that is the name it will go down under in the history books.
Commentators should get used to calling it Heller, not Parker.
According to the pleadings posted on Mr. Gura's website, it is known as:
ReplyDelete"District of Columbia and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Petitioners, v. Dick Anthony Heller, et. al., Respondents"
Even if the Court declares it protects an individual right, the scope of the right will have to be fleshed out, he says.
ReplyDeleteThat'll likely take a lot of time, too. Not sure what, exactly, "shall not be infringed" means.
Let us hope that Heller is better represented than Miller was.
ReplyDeleteLet us hope that Heller is better represented than Miller was.
ReplyDeleteMiller was represented fine. He just didn't bother to show up.