9th circuit sends CA AW ban case ( Miller v Bointa ) back down to lower court .

[Metal god]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c88Hpp3zwtQ

So it looks like the CA AW ban is being sent back down to the Federal court where it was already ruled unconstitutional . Interestingly enough , the judge in that case was Judge Benitez and he used the text and tradition approach like the SCOTUS did in Bruan when coming to his decision a year ago .

So the Federal district judge found it unconstitutional using the same standard of review as the SCOTUS just did and the 3 judge panel at the 9th circuit also found it unconstitutional . I believe it then was either excepted en-banc or was appealed to be heard en-banc when they placed it on hold awaiting the outcome of the Bruan case being heard at the SCOTUS at the time .

My question is . since it had already been ruled on at the 9th by a 3 judge panel why does it go all the way back to the district judge ? On the whole I don't care really because judge Benitez's ruling was validated in the recent Bruan case so I suspect the outcome will not be any different . I just don't get why it goes all the way back down . The only reason I can think of is that the state did not make arguments based on text and tradition but rather the now extinct 2 step process .

Also seems likely Banetiz will order a preliminary injunction against the state on enforcing the AW ban which the 9th will over rule but still , I bet the judge does it anyway .

 

[armoredman]

I wish him the best dealing with that nest of swamp snakes. Good news.

 

[raimius]

Seems like they are just using this to delay things more.

 

[rc]

I agree they are holding back the tide until they hope to pass national bans that will tie us up in court even longer.

 

[44 AMP]

Before I ascribe nefarious evil motives to the court process (though I think some in it do have them ) one needs to consider the way the system (seems) to work.

It would be logical that since the larger framework of review has been "reset" to a degree by the recent SCOTUS decision, cases, and decisions are being re-examined, and sending them back down to a court level where both sides have an opportunity to restate their arguments (in light of the revised review framework) would be the thing to do.

Tedious and time consuming, perhaps, but it does (hopefully) prevent an appeal based on a "lack of being able to argue...xxxx points".

Legal eagles, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the basic idea??

 

[natman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c88Hpp3zwtQ

My question is . since it had already been ruled on at the 9th by a 3 judge panel why does it go all the way back to the district judge ?

To delay the inevitable as long as possible, in the hope that some Hail Mary move happens to change the Supreme Court in the meantime.

 

[Spats McGee]

Before I ascribe nefarious evil motives to the court process (though I think some in it do have them ) one needs to consider the way the system (seems) to work.

It would be logical that since the larger framework of review has been "reset" to a degree by the recent SCOTUS decision, cases, and decisions are being re-examined, and sending them back down to a court level where both sides have an opportunity to restate their arguments (in light of the revised review framework) would be the thing to do.

Tedious and time consuming, perhaps, but it does (hopefully) prevent an appeal based on a "lack of being able to argue...xxxx points".

Legal eagles, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the basic idea??

I'm not going to correct you, because I think you're right. That is the basic idea. Both the trial court and 9th made their rulings under the prior (pre-Bruen) framework. Now the trial court may allow both sides to present their arguments anew, and perhaps introduce new evidence. Then it will analyze the whole thing under the new Bruen test, and it will probably go back to the 9th for review under the new Bruen test.

 

[raimius]

The 9th en banc panel also just refused to rehear the Young case (as instructed by SCOTUS), and kicked it down to the district. Clearly, they are just trying to waste time.
I don't know if there is a professional misconduct or fraud, waste, and abuse remedy for such nonsense.

 

[Metal god]

Here is that Young order , check out the decent . They slam there colleagues for sending it back down to the district court .and not simply ruling on the case based on the recent Bruan case .

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/08/19/12-17808.pdf

 

[csmsss]

I'm not going to correct you, because I think you're right. That is the basic idea. Both the trial court and 9th made their rulings under the prior (pre-Bruen) framework. Now the trial court may allow both sides to present their arguments anew, and perhaps introduce new evidence. Then it will analyze the whole thing under the new Bruen test, and it will probably go back to the 9th for review under the new Bruen test.

Thing is, Judge Benitez used precisely the same framework that SCOTUS did in Bruen in making his initial ruling. There really isn't anything legitimate to litigate here, and there is no legal justification for re-litigating at the district level. The ONLY rationalization for this is that the 9th is playing rope a dope and basically asserting for itself the right of advocacy on behalf of California's unconstitutional arguments and behavior.

 

[Metal god]

As much as I want to agree I can’t. The state never argued text and tradition, only rational bases with the 2 step approach the appeals court they knew would ultimately use if they lost at the district level. Which is exactly what happened.

As much as I want this over in our favor . I believe it’s far to allow the state to resubmit there arguments with the Bruan decision in mind . Correct me if I’m wrong but if they did not bring up those arguments at the district level they cannot bring them up on appeal ? This case would literally be over without them getting to make their new arguments based on the new guidelines .

 

[armoredman]

I am nowhere near a lawyer, but I throw in that I'd heard, (hearsay is such a great legal theory, ain't it?), that by kicking it all the way back down, it stops with Judge Benitez's final ruling, or can the case go all the way back up again?

 

[Metal god]

I am nowhere near a lawyer, but I throw in that I'd heard, (hearsay is such a great legal theory, ain't it?), that by kicking it all the way back down, it stops with Judge Benitez's final ruling, or can the case go all the way back up again?

Well I believe they vacated his ruling awhile back , then recently vacated there own a-banc ruling and sent it back down . So at this point there is no ruling in place .

FPC will for sure ask for a preliminary injunction to stop any enforcement of the AW ban . I believe the judge will grant the injunction immediately based on the very likelihood FPC will win on the merits based on the Bruan decision . However his ruling will be overturned with in 24hr by the 9th circuit. They will argue not allowing enforcement will allow a flood of AW into CA . The counter argument should be , there are already 10's of thousands in CA now . There will be little to no harm blocking enforcement which will fall on deaf ears .

 

[Limnophile]

@Metal god:
The state never argued text and tradition … .

That's too bad for the tyrannical state. They were already put on notice by the precedential decisions of Heller and McDonald that text, history, and tradition alone were the basis for decision making. Benitez didn't make that up out of thin air. This is a subversive, unconstitutional, straight-up delay tactic.

 

[44 AMP]

This is a subversive, unconstitutional, straight-up delay tactic.

I would agree, other than calling it unconstitutional, I don't believe that is an appropriate use of the term.

I don't see this matter of court procedures as a Constitutional issue, but I am willing to listen to specific arguments that it is.

 

[seanc]

I don't see this matter of court procedures as a Constitutional issue, but I am willing to listen to specific arguments that it is.

Seems like double-jeopardy to me. The state had their shot, they chose the wrong tactic and now they get a 2nd chance to win.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Seems like double-jeopardy to me. The state had their shot, they chose the wrong tactic and now they get a 2nd chance to win.

You might want to read up on exactly what "double jeopardy" is and means. It means that a person cannot be tried twice for the same offense. A single case going up and down the appeals ladder cannot, by definition, be double jeopardy.

 

[Metal god]

When I look at these things I usually use the shoe is on the other foot method of analysis . Meaning if I were in the states position would I want and believe I should get another chance to make my argument based on the new precedent if I had lost . I would if my original strategy was to argue in a manner the appeals court is known to use but now a higher court says I can no longer use .

I see you all’s point because I’m sure the state mentioned text and tradition somewhere in the original arguments . However I’m sure it was in passing and not robustly argued because they knew it was not the standard the appeals courts use and more robustly argued the two step approach instead .

 

[Metal god]

I read there is going to be a hearing on this case on Monday . I can't find any official info on this . Where do I look to find the time and court room this will be held , I'd like to attend ?

EDIT : I found it or better said , someone helped me find it

NOTICE of Spreading the Mandate: Appeal Mandate Hearing set for 8/29/2022 09:30 AM in Courtroom 5A before Judge Roger T. Benitez. (no document attached) (gxr) (Entered: 08/24/2022)

 

[KyJim]

I just read a case in the Sixth Circuit where the panel raised, on its own, an issue of ineffective counsel in a habeas corpus case. The guy was given a death sentence in the Ohio state courts and the issue was not raised in any state court or in the U.S. district court. After asking for briefs on the issue, the Sixth Circuit panel ruled on the merits without it ever being sent back down.

My point is that the federal appellate courts have a lot of leeway in how they handle things. Usually, they stay within the lines but sometimes they don't. BTW, I agree that counsel was ineffective.

Jones v. Bradshaw