SCOTUS enforcement...

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Texasgrillchef

member
Joined
Jun 29, 2019
Messages
700
Who enforces SCOTUS rulings if say a state for example refuses to follow a SCOTUS ruling?

Example... Criminal case, Justices vacate the conviction and order release from prison. But state refuses to release prisoner from prison or to expunge the record of conviction? Who would enforce it? Who would the lawyers go to for enforcement?

Example, State passes unconstitutional law. SCOTUS rules the law unconstitutional, and law is repealed (?) struck down (not sure the correct term)
Yet state still continues enforcement of that law. Who would by called on to enforce the state to stop? who would initiate that action?

In either example would the lawyers have to go back to SCOTUS to request enforcement? or would the lawyers go to the DOJ? Would the FBI or Marshalls be called out to enforce?

I realize as far as i know that no one has defied SCOTUS yet, but what if a state or other government agency (state or federal) defied a SCOTUS ruling/order.
 
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Worcester-v-Georgia
("John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it! ...)

In fact, it was Georgia that ignored a Supreme Court ruling, but we remember Jackson.
Same thing w/Brown vs Board of Education until Eisenhower & Kennedy involved federal/federilzed troops.

In the end, we are largely governed by consent -- including anything that comes down from SCOTUS.
The rub, to some people's way of thinking, is that The People should not retain the means to effectively dissent.
 
Last edited:
MEHavey said:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Worcester-v-Georgia
("John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it! ...)

In fact, it was Georgia that ignored a Supreme Court ruling, but we remember Jackson.
Same thing w/Brown vs Board of Education until Eisenhower & Kennedy involved federal/federilzed troops.

In the end, we are largely governed by consent -- including anything that comes down from SCOTUS.
The rub, to some people's way of thinking, is that The People should not retain the means to effectively dissent.
Click to expand...

Doh!!! Hello! I totally forgot about those! Brain fart!

You are absolutely correct! I for the life of me dont know why i totally forgot about those!

Why sometimes its good to be reminded!

Thanks!!!
 
Happened to be in a bookstore earlier in the week and I spotted Bill O'Reilly's book on the Civil War. Leafing through it I was interested in how he started, not with Ft Sumter, but John Brown's raid as the spark that started the war.
In any case, I was once more fascinated by the legal wrangling leading up to the war and efforts to reach compromise between the slave owners and the antis and it struck me how that mirrors the legislative two step going on about guns.
There is nothing in the Constitution about slavery, either pro or against. It is later addressed in amendments subsequent to the Bill Of Rights, but 2A is right there right behind Freedom or Religion, Speech and Gathering. As a matter of fact, it's how those three freedoms are guaranteed.
Certainly hope things end more peaceably than they did back then.
 
FlSwampRat said:
There is nothing in the Constitution about slavery ... It is later addressed in amendments subsequent to the Bill Of Rights
Click to expand...
Just like voting rights, Constitution was "modernized" by addition of 14th, 19th and 26th Amendments.

And no one questions voting rights in 2020. If you are of age, you can vote.

FlSwampRat said:
but 2A is right there
Click to expand...
That's right.

And just as "modern types" of speech are also protected by the First Amendment, justice Scalia and courts have stated so should "modern types" of arms (which includes ammunition storage device like magazines) protected by the Second Amendment. If you are of age, you should be able to use firearms for self defense.
 
FlSwampRat said:
There is nothing in the Constitution about slavery, either pro or against.
Click to expand...
Slavery was certainly recognized originally in the Constitution:
1. Slaves were counted as 3/5 of free people in allocating Representatives.
2. The African slave trade could not be abolished until 20 years after the Constitution entered into force (that is, until 1808).
Notice that these things were inherent in the original document, unlike the RKBA, which was an afterthought.
Of course, slavery was finally abolished by the13th Amendment. But it took a civil war to do it.
 
LiveLife said:
Just like voting rights, Constitution was "modernized" by addition of 14th, 19th and 26th Amendments.

And no one questions voting rights in 2020. If you are of age, you can vote.


That's right.

And just as "modern types" of speech are also protected by the First Amendment, justice Scalia and courts have stated so should "modern types" of arms (which includes ammunition storage device like magazines) protected by the Second Amendment. If you are of age, you should be able to use firearms for self defense.
Click to expand...

However as we all know, states have disregarded his opinion and even federal courts have ignored his opinion. Thats one of the problems we have now is the lower courts ignoring that as well as ignoring portions of the decesion of both heller and mcdonald.

Hopefully they will hear worman v healy and make a hard stand decesion thats clear for the courts to interpret and follow.
 
You haven't noticed the transformation of federal courts from recent years' appointments? Many courts are now leaning conservative-pro gun/2A and leaning more by the month.

What would happen if federal courts start ruling in favor of gun rights/2A and the Supreme Court rules in favor for Worman v Healey?
 
FlSwampRat said:
Happened to be in a bookstore earlier in the week and I spotted Bill O'Reilly's book on the Civil War. Leafing through it I was interested in how he started, not with Ft Sumter, but John Brown's raid as the spark that started the war.
In any case, I was once more fascinated by the legal wrangling leading up to the war and efforts to reach compromise between the slave owners and the antis and it struck me how that mirrors the legislative two step going on about guns.
There is nothing in the Constitution about slavery, either pro or against. It is later addressed in amendments subsequent to the Bill Of Rights, but 2A is right there right behind Freedom or Religion, Speech and Gathering. As a matter of fact, it's how those three freedoms are guaranteed.
Certainly hope things end more peaceably than they did back then.
Click to expand...

What that book isn't covering for some reason to is the posturing of the states to succeed from the Union. So it wasnt just about slavery. Otherwise we would have let them succeed from the Union and gone on about our Buisness.

Even then there was some posturing going on about if they had the right to succeed from the Union or not.

They did.... Brown made is move and bang off it went.

However this is off topic from the discussing The enforcement of SCOTUS rulings

When i looked back at the actions taken. SCOTUS didnt have to issue any orders to enforce. The enforcement decision order came from the Presidents when they sent in the National Guard.
 
Texasgrillchef said:
Who enforces SCOTUS rulings if say a state for example refuses to follow a SCOTUS ruling?


I realize as far as i know that no one has defied SCOTUS yet, but what if a state or other government agency (state or federal) defied a SCOTUS ruling/order.
Click to expand...

Actually, that has happened.

By the time Andrew Jackson was President, the Cherokee nation in Georgia had mostly assimilated, becoming small farmers. He began pressuring them, hoping to provoke them into war.

Instead, they went to court. The case went all of the way to the Supreme Court, and they won.

Andrew Jackson still confiscated their property and sent them to Oklahoma. His remark, "How many troops does Justice Marshall have?"

Since that time, I believe the Supreme Court has been a less than an equal branch to the Executive, and they've not been eager to challenge a sitting President.
 
Last edited:
If you start debating the causes of the Civil War, this will close the thread. Let's rope it back to the OP's question.
 
LiveLife said:
You haven't noticed the transformation of federal courts from recent years' appointments? Many courts are now leaning conservative-pro gun/2A and leaning more by the month.

What would happen if federal courts start ruling in favor of gun rights/2A and the Supreme Court rules in favor for Worman v Healey?
Click to expand...

yes Benitez in California is one of them. However, 51 of the judges waiting on senate confirmation are mostly for positions in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th And 7th districts.

We maybe lucky enough that Justice Gingsberg may not make it on the bench for another 5 years from now. Thus allowing us to have 5 1/2 conservative judges. I say 1/2 because chief justice Roberts is a soft conservative. It might even be possible to get 7 on as well, and the other liberal justice is 81. Although that’s not as much a sure thing considering Ginsberg health.

The worman v Healy case should have already been decided to make cert or not on Jan 10th, it wasn’t pushed off till another conference and it not been rejected yet either, nor as it been accepted either. Speculation is that they are waiting to make the decision on the NYC case. How they decide on that case may have some effect on if they Hear the Worman v Healy case. Although some are questioning why, because the two cases while gun related are different. One is about traveling with handguns, the other is about the ban on AW’s and High cap magazines.Another lawyer speculates, that they are waiting to see what happens in Virginia, and another speculates on what the outcome of the Benitez case with California is decided on Feb 9th, since it too has to do with an AW ban. Of course this is all speculation by those that write on the scotus blog. No one knows for sure, other than the Worman V Healy case is currently in limbo, having not been rescheduled, denied, or given cert.

One thing is for sure, it’s a very important case to hear, and it could swing our way, but then again Chief Justice Roberts is a soft conservative.

if the Supreme Court rules fully in our favor striking down both the AW and Magazine ban, it will stop Virginia and now Georgia in its track, solve 2 of the three cases in Ca. as well as overturn everyone else with magazine cap bans and AW bans.

With more conservative judges in lower courts it will make it easier for the lower courts to uphold SCOTUS rulings and make the other side appeal and not us having to appeal as much. It will also stop most cases at the circuit appellate level too because mostly likely SCOTUS would deny petitions from the states.

the more we can get Staunch conservatives onto the federal benches the easier will be for us and for the president. Then he doesn’t have to take the “wrap” as much when the courts find laws unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
I have also wondered if the Supreme Court has any teeth now. Seems DC drug its feet for a loooooooooooooong time after their loss in the Heller case and I still don't think they are actually following the ruling.

When the left loses they either throw childish fit or ignore the decision.
 
Ohen Cepel said:
I have also wondered if the Supreme Court has any teeth now. Seems DC drug its feet for a loooooooooooooong time after their loss in the Heller case and I still don't think they are actually following the ruling.

When the left loses they either throw childish fit or ignore the decision.
Click to expand...

Heller did file a second case because of that and other issues. Yet it didnt amount to much and it was rejected by SCOTUS at the time.

We have better more conservative judes in the bench now.
 
Texasgrillchef said:
Heller did file a second case because of that and other issues. Yet it didnt amount to much and it was rejected by SCOTUS at the time.

We have better more conservative [judges] in the bench now.
Click to expand...
For Heller 2, then federal judge Kavanaugh wrote a 50 page dissent saying DC's ban on semi-auto rifle and registration were unconstitutional under Heller - https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/inter...C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

"... the D.C. ban on semi-automatic rifles and the D.C. gun registration requirement are unconstitutional"​

And now judge Kavanaugh is a Supreme Court justice ... I bet he is gladly hoping to have his day in Supreme Court to change that.
 
40-82 said:
Actually, that has happened.

By the time Andrew Jackson was President, the Cherokee nation in Georgia had mostly assimilated, becoming small farmers. He began pressuring them, hoping to provoke them into war.

Instead, they went to court. The case went all of the way to the Supreme Court, and they won.

Andrew Jackson still confiscated their property and sent them to Oklahoma. His remark, "How many troops does Justice Marshall have?"

Since that time, I believe the Supreme Court has been a less than an equal branch to the Executive, and they've not been eager to challenge a sitting President.

Another landmark case: Brown v. The Board of Education, 1957. President Eisenhower used Federal Marshals to enforce equality between blacks and whites in education. I think the date, 1957, is a critical component to this ruling that hasn't been addressed by history. Had the case gone to the Supreme Court in '55, which would have been before the '56 election, and had Eisenhower enforced the ruling, I think he would have lost the election, and he knew it. I think the case was timed to be decided after Eisenhower was elected to that critical second term.

My view for what's it's worth is that America was racist enough in 1956 to refuse to elect a President who would force equal rights on the country. The average American in the privacy of the voting booth wouldn't have supported it. But open insurrection? No. If we didn't like it. We recognized it as justice.

I think It's a credit to the American people of 1957 that they ultimately valued justice over personal preference. It's hard to admit you're wrong, and we did. In the time since, we've grown as a nation, and that kind of personal preference has largely disappeared.
Click to expand...

Brown vs The Board of Education was settled on May 17, 1954, long before the 1956 Presidential election.
 
LiveLife said:
For Heller 2, then federal judge Kavanaugh wrote a 50 page dissent saying DC's ban on semi-auto rifle and registration were unconstitutional under Heller - https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/inter...C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

"... the D.C. ban on semi-automatic rifles and the D.C. gun registration requirement are unconstitutional"​

And now judge Kavanaugh is a Supreme Court justice ... I bet he is gladly hoping to have his day in Supreme Court to change that.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was aware he had written a 50 page dissent on Heller 2.

Yep hopefully so! He will have that chance with Worman v Healy, however to issue cert needs at least 4 justices voting to hear the case. Right now it’s in limbo... which is rare. Usually cases are rescheduled for another conference, denied, or granted cert.
 
Here’s another question for one of the legal types. hypothetically of course.

If you challenge a State law based on its unconstitutionality, your case is defended by the states attorney general.

In every state I know of, I could be wrong, the State AG is elected by the people of the state. Some states he serves for 4 years some 6 years.

As we all know it can take 3-10 years to fight a case through to SCOTUS and get a opinion from SCOTUS. Of course the average median time frame is about 6 years, and SCOTUS can decide not to hear a case.

Of course there is always timing too... when the case was filed as well. Thus I would expect that during the course of fighting the case, the States AG would come up for election at least once if not more then once.

Question 1, can a State AG voluntarily choose to drop the case? Or is he required to appeal the case until all appeals have run out?

Question 2, Assuming he isn’t required to exhaust all appeals on this case. Could a person run against the State AG claiming if he was elected he would drop the case?

Now I do realize that if a case is dropped by the AG that it would cause the law to be found unconstitutional and thus the states law would be struck down. What it would not do though is create a nationwide precedent with case law that could effectively keep other states in other districts from passing the same law. If of course though the Nth Circuit court of appeals found the law unconstitutional, and the AG decided to not appeal to SCOTUS then it would only set precedent for those states in that circuit courts district. Correct?

I also realize that if the question of constitutionality is only fought in the states courts to the states Supreme Court. Those decisions only apply to the state.

One last question, if you want to appeal the states Supreme Court, would you appeal to federal district court, or directly to the circuit court of appeals for that district that the state is in?
 
Last edited:
Texasgrillchef said:
Here’s another question for one of the legal types. hypothetically of course.

If you challenge a State law based on its unconstitutionality, your case is defended by the states attorney general.

In every state I know of, I could be wrong, the State AG is elected by the people of the state. Some states he serves for 4 years some 6 years.

As we all know it can take 3-10 years to fight a case through to SCOTUS and get a opinion from SCOTUS. Of course the average median time frame is about 6 years, and SCOTUS can decide not to hear a case.

Of course there is always timing too... when the case was filed as well. Thus I would expect that during the course of fighting the case, the States AG would come up for election at least once if not more then once.

Question 1, can a State AG voluntarily choose to drop the case? Or is he required to appeal the case until all appeals have run out?

Question 2, Assuming he isn’t required to exhaust all appeals on this case. Could a person run against the State AG claiming if he was elected he would drop the case?

Now I do realize that if a case is dropped by the AG that it would cause the law to be found unconstitutional and thus the states law would be struck down. What it would not do though is create a nationwide precedent with case law that could effectively keep other states in other districts from passing the same law. If of course though the Nth Circuit court of appeals found the law unconstitutional, and the AG decided to not appeal to SCOTUS then it would only set precedent for those states in that circuit courts district. Correct?

I also realize that if the question of constitutionality is only fought in the states courts to the states Supreme Court. Those decisions only apply to the state.

One last question, if you want to appeal the states Supreme Court, would you appeal to federal district court, or directly to the circuit court of appeals for that district that the state is in?
Click to expand...

TexasGrillChief,
What you have been asking is a series of questions that normally are addressed in constitutional law courses. Those can be difficult to boil down to a specified fact pattern in a specific case which is why a practicing attorney will want those before answering. In a course, the professor would give you specific court cases with fact patterns where the court has tried to illustrate the doctrine such as standing and its application.

In general, you are addressing two issues above--the first is standing to challenge a law. Standing requirements for facial challenges to the constitutionality of new laws are different than a constitutional case involving the application of the law. Exhaustion is a court doctrine that helps confine standing in that a person should have to resolve all attempts of redress (resolving the dispute) through other means than via the courts. But it applies in some instances but not in others especially cases brought via equity jurisdiction (injunctions for example).

What I can suggest is that you read something like a general page on Justiciability such as https://infogalactic.com/info/Justiciability or https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/justiciability and then look for more specific answers to your question.

Be aware that standing is something that the courts more or less control so the answers you seek may not be consistent. I can point to cases where an Attorney General that attempted to ditch a case might have the courts substitute another party as plaintiff and cases where the state was allowed to ditch a case midstream.

The last question you make deals with a court's jurisdiction. Jurisdiction can be regarded as the law(s) that grant a court the power to hear a dispute and resolve it.

In general, we have two parallel court systems--federal and state. If you begin in a state court, then you normally have to go through a trial court, an intermediate court of appeals, and a state supreme court. If the case only involves state laws with no federal question (connection with federal law) then the State Supreme Court's decision is final.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/federal_question_jurisdiction

If you begin in federal court, the federal court must have jurisdiction via a federal question being addressed and then the case proceeds to a court of appeals that covers the district of the original case and then to the U.S. Supreme Court. Because high courts, both state and federal, regard their time as valuable--most states have discretion for the state's high court to take a case or not regarding a lower appellate court decision. For the most part, cases come before the U.S. Supreme Court only under their discretionary docket. This means that most petitions for U.S. Supreme Court involvement in a case are ignored.

There are also related doctrines such as one that prevent a litigant getting an unfavorable decision in one system and then attempting to revive the case through the other system of courts. You cannot generally switch from one court system to another midstream either unless your original case is in preliminary stages before a trial court. Under certain conditions, diversity in citizenship is one and federal question is another, you can petition a federal court to take up the case instead of the original state trial court. Jurisdiction is a common reason that courts throw out cases because if a court lacks jurisdiction over the claim then it cannot hear nor decide the case. Marbury v Madison is a classic case of jurisdiction.
 
Last edited:
40-82 said:
Since that time (Andrew Jackson and the Cherokee), I believe the Supreme Court has been a less than an equal branch to the Executive, and they've not been eager to challenge a sitting President.
Click to expand...
FDR threatened to expand the Court and fill the new positions with his supporters to get the decision he wanted on a particular case. Recently, Democrats have made the same threat. (I hope they are smart enough not to carry through. With that precedent, the next Republican administration could reduce the court to five and get rid of all the liberal justices. Consistency in the legal system is critical to an orderly society. Playing games with it to get preferred decisions would create anarchy.)
 
I don't see "core" of US Constitution like SCOTUS judge numbers and electoral college changing anytime soon.

Besides, I believe antis already ruled out SCOTUS judge number increase as Trump is likely to win in 2020 and backfire by appointing more conservative justices for life. :eek:
 
boom boom said:
TexasGrillChief,
What you have been asking is a series of questions that normally are addressed in constitutional law courses. Those can be difficult to boil down to a specified fact pattern in a specific case which is why a practicing attorney will want those before answering. In a course, the professor would give you specific court cases with fact patterns where the court has tried to illustrate the doctrine such as standing and its application.

In general, you are addressing two issues above--the first is standing to challenge a law. Standing requirements for facial challenges to the constitutionality of new laws are different than a constitutional case involving the application of the law. Exhaustion is a court doctrine that helps confine standing in that a person should have to resolve all attempts of redress (resolving the dispute) through other means than via the courts. But it applies in some instances but not in others especially cases brought via equity jurisdiction (injunctions for example).

What I can suggest is that you read something like a general page on Justiciability such as https://infogalactic.com/info/Justiciability or https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/justiciability and then look for more specific answers to your question.

Be aware that standing is something that the courts more or less control so the answers you seek may not be consistent. I can point to cases where an Attorney General that attempted to ditch a case might have the courts substitute another party as plaintiff and cases where the state was allowed to ditch a case midstream.

The last question you make deals with a court's jurisdiction. Jurisdiction can be regarded as the law(s) that grant a court the power to hear a dispute and resolve it.

In general, we have two parallel court systems--federal and state. If you begin in a state court, then you normally have to go through a trial court, an intermediate court of appeals, and a state supreme court. If the case only involves state laws with no federal question (connection with federal law) then the State Supreme Court's decision is final.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/federal_question_jurisdiction

If you begin in federal court, the federal court must have jurisdiction via a federal question being addressed and then the case proceeds to a court of appeals that covers the district of the original case and then to the U.S. Supreme Court. Because high courts, both state and federal, regard their time as valuable--most states have discretion for the state's high court to take a case or not regarding a lower appellate court decision. For the most part, cases come before the U.S. Supreme Court only under their discretionary docket. This means that most petitions for U.S. Supreme Court involvement in a case are ignored.

There are also related doctrines such as one that prevent a litigant getting an unfavorable decision in one system and then attempting to revive the case through the other system of courts. You cannot generally switch from one court system to another midstream either unless your original case is in preliminary stages before a trial court. Under certain conditions, diversity in citizenship is one and federal question is another, you can petition a federal court to take up the case instead of the original state trial court. Jurisdiction is a common reason that courts throw out cases because if a court lacks jurisdiction over the claim then it cannot hear nor decide the case. Marbury v Madison is a classic case of jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Thank you, I will definitely spend some time reading those links. Some of what you said I understood already. Such as I knew already it couldn’t jump from a state court to federal court without there being some sort of federal question. I knew that SCOTUS doesn’t hear every case that they receive a petition for either. I do know sometimes SCOTUS hears some cases with Federal Questions after a states Supreme Court have ruled. There is a case that was just heard by SCOTUS from Kansas that the Kansas Supreme Court had ruled on. My question there that wasn’t able to find, is did it go straight from the Kansas Supreme Court to SCOTUS, or did it have to go to the 8th circuit court of appeals before making it to SCOTUS

I didn’t really get an answer to if the State AG can just drop a case, if he so chooses. I will give an exact case. Duncan v Beccara in the 9th circuit. The case Benitez is about to impose an injunction on Beccara (CA) preventing them from enforcing the Ban. Beccara has already said he would file an appeal to the 9th Circuit court of appeals. So my question was he required to do that?
If Beccara had lost the election and a new State AG took office, would the new state AG be required to file an appeal or could he just drop it. Leaving the summary judgment for Duncan in place that the AWB was unconstitutional?

Like I said I will go read those links you provided to see if it answers my questions. Even if it doesn’t I will still learn something new.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

U
  • Locked
Do you think SCOTUS will not grant cert on these cases?
Replies
8
Views
416
azmjs
A
C
  • Locked
D.C. Court of Appeals denies en banc hearing in Parker
2 3 4 5
Replies
117
Views
7K
The Law
T
A
  • Locked
Would a SCOTUS win in any 'assault weapons' case prevent the Sandy Hook plan?
Replies
1
Views
540
Spats McGee
Spats McGee
U
  • Locked
Notice of Appeal to SCOTUS for Maryland's Woollard v. Sheridan
Replies
4
Views
706
Al Norris
A
T
  • Locked
New Gun Laws signed by Constitutionally Unqualified "President"?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
3K
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top