SADEC files Amicus Brief in Viramontes v Cook County
Today, SADEC and the Aurora Sportsmen’s Club filed an amicus brief with SCOTUS in the case of Viramontes v Cook County (AWB). The outcome of Viramontes will have a direct impact on the combined Barnett cases fighting to overturn PICA.
The brief is an indictment of the lower courts and a pleading for SCOTUS to put the inferior courts back in order and get them to follow precedent and dicta. I think you will appreciate it. It is what our people have been saying for years, but until now nobody has had the gumption to put it in writing before the Supreme Court. I would encourage you to read the entire brief, linked above.
The premise is simple:
Eighteen years after this Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, even after further (remedial?) instructions on how to adjudicate Second Amendment claims in: McDonald v.City of Chicago, Caetano v.Massachusetts, N.Y. State Rifle &Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, United States v. Rahimi, United States v.Hemani, U.S. , and Wolford v. Lopez, —courts that are duty-bound to follow the precedents of the Supreme Court, are still commandeering its prerogative and duty—“to say what the law is. ”Marbury v. Madison. (citations omitted)
Justice Marshall asked not once, but twice in that case, the not wholly rhetorical questions: “Why otherwise does [the Constitution] direct the judges to take an oath to support it?” Id. at 179. “Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeable to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government?”
We even propose a two-part solution:
A. The Court Should Give Clear Instructions to the Second and Seventh Circuits and Explain the Effect of Its Holding on Inconsistent Circuit Precedent AND
B. The Court Should Use GVR Orders Where an Intervening Merits Decision Undermines a Pending Judgment
…Supreme Court Rule 10(a) itself suggests this remedy for when a circuit court’s decision “has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power.” Rule 10(c)’s plain text provides that the Supreme Court can act when a circuit court “has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.”
Feelings and imaginary standards concocted in old man’s fantasy are not how civil rights cases should be decided. This briefs urges SCOTUS to get the lower federal courts in order and insist they toe the line.
SADEC is not looking to be just another 2A organization. We want to make the arguments, push the boundaries, and make the cases that other groups either can't or wont. If you appreciate this approach and agree with what is in the brief, please help us continue to push the fight by donating at https://sadec.org/donate