Illinois Challenges Concealed Carry Decision

[Trent]

Yup, this already went out of Illinois.

Any idea on the time frame for this 10 person vote coming up? Or the political leanings of the Judges on that panel?

 

[Phatty]

What happens now is that the plaintiffs will get a chance to file an answer to the petition for rehearing.

I think you are mistaken.

You are technically correct that the responding party only gets to answer when it is requested, but as a matter of practice it is almost always requested, and in important cases such as this it is always requested. So, when I stated that the plaintiffs will get a chance to answer, that was based on the knowledge that answers are always requested in cases such as this.

There is evidently more interest in this than at first blush. Earlier today, the CA7 requested a response from the winning counsel.

As I mentioned, this is nothing out of the ordinary and was to be expected.

 

[Phatty]

Any idea on the time frame for this 10 person vote coming up?

The plaintiffs' answer is due on January 23. Within 10 days after the filing of the answer, one of the judges will request a vote. Each judge must vote within 14 days from the request to vote. So, at the latest, the judges will vote within 24 days of January 23.

But, there's no time limit on when the judges have to issue an order revealing the vote. That time line is highly dependent on each individual case. For example if there is a 6-4 vote to deny the petition for rehearing, the 4 judges in the minority have the right to author a dissenting opinion expressing their view and that can take some time to author. If the vote is 10-0 either way, the order would probably issue the day after the vote.

 

[Phatty]

Or the political leanings of the Judges on that panel?

Right off the bat, you can guess how 3 of the 10 judges will vote, because the three judges on the original panel are likely to vote the same way.

So, Posner and Flaum will likely vote to deny rehearing and Williams will vote to grant rehearing.

The most dependable pro-gun vote on the court IMHO is Sykes, so she is very likely a "deny" vote as well. She authored the Ezell opinion (striking down Chicago's shooting range ban) and was the sole dissenting vote in Skoien (unsuccessful challenge to federal gun ban for persons convicted of misdemeanors involving domestic violence). The for sure "grant" vote is Diane Wood, a liberal leaning member of the court nominated by Clinton. You can probably assume that David Hamilton (nominated by Obama) will also vote to grant the petition. Kanne (a Reagan nominee) will probably vote to deny the petition. Kanne concurred with Sykes in the Ezell opinion.

The remaining judges aren't so clear. Rovner (a Bush I nominee) did concur with the Ezell judgment, but authored a separate opinion that was less pro-gun. I think he will vote "deny" but I'm not sure. Easterbrook (Reagan nominee) is known as a conservative judge, but I don't think he is pro-gun (and may in fact be personally hostile to gun rights), but even if he doesn't favor gun rights I think, unlike liberal judges, he will follow the law honestly. He may vote to grant the petition for rehearing, but I think that would only be because he wants to make the scope of the opinion narrower even if he agrees that the ban is unconstitutional. I don't know enough about Tinder (Bush II nominee) to predict his vote, but at least he is a Republican-nominated judge.

So the total tally is:
Posner -- Deny
Flaum -- Deny
Sykes -- Deny
Kanne -- Deny
Easterbrook -- Maybe
Tinder -- Maybe
Rovner -- Maybe
Wood -- Grant
Williams -- Grant
Hamilton -- Grant

In order to grant Illinois' petition, there needs to be 6 votes. That means that besides the four likely deny votes, we only need one of the "maybes" to come to our side. Because all of the maybe's are Republican appointed judges, we have a good chance to get that last "deny" vote.

 

[Al Norris]

There is evidently more interest in this than at first blush. Earlier today, the CA7 requested a response from the winning counsel.

As I mentioned, this is nothing out of the ordinary and was to be expected.

What is unusual is for such a request to come this fast at the 7th circuit. At least the appellate attorneys I've spoken with have all said this.

I believe we will see an en banc rehearing. This is based upon the seriousness of the decision, which struck down a (decades old) State law. Doesn't much matter that we (mostly all) think the decision was proper, it is always a serious matter to invalidate a State law.

 

[Phatty]

What is unusual is for such a request to come this fast at the 7th circuit. At least the appellate attorneys I've spoken with have all said this.

I believe we will see an en banc rehearing. This is based upon the seriousness of the decision, which struck down a (decades old) State law. Doesn't much matter that we (mostly all) think the decision was proper, it is always a serious matter to invalidate a State law.

They did act on it relatively quickly, but that's more a reflection of it being high profile and one of the anti-gun liberals on the court probably making the request. If this was a boring contract case, for example, when a petition comes in each of the judges would need time to read the petition, read the original decision and decide what to do. Here, either Diane Wood or Ann Williams likely had their minds made up that they wanted a rehearing before the petition was even filed.

If five or six judges read the original opinion and decide that they would have concurred with the opinion, I don't think they'll vote for the rehearing because it would be a complete waste of their time. It wouldn't make sense to grant the rehearing just so that you could enter an identical opinion nine months later. Posner is one of (if not the most) influential judges on the court, so the fact that he authored the original opinion may sway some of the other judges to get on board with him.

 

[wep45]

if illinois wants change............2013 is election year..........WAKE up...STAND up.... and vote the Q BALL and ALL the other out!!

WE CAN OVERCOME!!!

 

[JTHunter]

The upcoming IGold (Il. Gun Owner's Lobby Day) rally in early March will be VERY interesting this year!

 

[meleors]

Quinn will not be up for re-election until 2014.

 

[Al Norris]

The response from Alan Gura and Charles Cooper are in.

By themselves, the briefs are good. To see some interesting interaction between the NRA (Shepard) and the SAF (Moore), read the Shepard brief first. It came in early this afternoon.

Then read the More brief. It's a rewrite by Gura and uploaded by David Jensen, about an hour before it was due.

 

[Trent]

Quite a read! Don't have a deep understanding of a lot of the stuff they're talking about.

But, there's a special place in my heart for those who are willing (and quite able) to slug it out with Madigan.

How long does the Court have left to decide if the en banc hearing will go forward?

 

[Davey Wavey]

Ten days for the judges to call for a vote. Then fourteen days to get their votes in if a vote is called. Maximum of twenty four days for us to see what happens next.

 

[Phatty]

Maximum of twenty four days for us to see what happens next.

The judges will know the result of the vote within a maximum of 24 days, but there's no rule governing when they have to publicly release the result of the vote. In other words, it may be much longer than 24 days before we hear anything.

 

[Al Norris]

The other side of that coin is that if no judge calls for a vote, there will be no rehearing. We could know in as few as 10 days.

 

[Prophet]

Remember, these people are not regular politicians they are all criminals and they won't give up power until they are convicted and sent to prison or they die. The will of the people or the decision of the courts means nothing to them!!

Amen.

 

[Phatty]

The other side of that coin is that if no judge calls for a vote, there will be no rehearing. We could know in as few as 10 days.

That is true. If the judges are unanimous to deny the petition, or if there is a majority vote to deny the petition and no judge wants to write an opinion concurring with or dissenting from that decision, we'll find out the result of the vote right away.

The anti-gun judges will definitely vote to grant the petition, so there won't be a unanimous vote to deny. Also, I think that if there is, for example, a 6-4 vote to deny the petition, one of the anti-gun judges will want to write a dissenting opinion and that takes time.

 

[mgkdrgn]

Of course they are ... and they will continue to fight to the last taxpayer dollar.

 

[Texshooter]

Let S/A know you want them out of Ill. if they want any more of your money.

 

[k_dawg]

Basically, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is upset that her white hood was removed publically.

She is hoping there are enough secret white hoods in the rest of the court willing to deny basic human rights to the 'undesirables'.

Unfortunately, our current Executive Branch is unwilling to march Federal Troops to defend the free excercise of civil rights already ruled upon by the SCOTUS.

In the mean time, the back of the bus is very crowded. Pray these modern day Jim Crow Laws do not start thuggery tactics such as lighting off crosses and lynching people.

 

[Autolycus]

It is a serious waste of my tax dollars.

 

[Phatty]

The 7th Circuit has not yet entered an order on the State's petition for rehearing. I think this is good news. The vote amongst the judges of the 7th Circuit has already taken place. Typically, where the judges vote to grant a rehearing, an order is issued almost immediately after the vote. If the vote is to deny the rehearing, any dissenting judges get the opportunity to draft a dissenting opinion and that takes time, which can delay the entry of the order.

As a frame of reference, in the USA v. Skoien case (defendant challenged the domestic violence misdemeanor ban as unconstitutional) the initial 3-judge panel on the 7th Circuit vacated the judgment against the defendant. The US Attorney petitioned for a rehearing en banc and the 7th Circuit granted the petition 19 days after the answer to the petition was filed.

We are now 28 days after the answer to the petition was filed and still no order. I think there will be good news.

 

[El Tejon]

I don't know enough about Tinder (Bush II nominee) to predict his vote, but at least he is a Republican-nominated judge.

Tinder is from the Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis). What little I know of him, I would be shocked if he voted to grant rehr'g.

 

[Trent]

Phatty, thanks for the update!

 

[Quick Draw McGraw]

So it looks like the rehearing was denied! Woot

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho&shofile=12-1269_003.pdf

 

[El Tejon]

A police shooting in New York City is evidence of the danger of upholding the right of non-police to exercise a civil right?

Hamilton is also from the Southern District of Indiana. I express no shock at his dissent.