Another SCOTUS rejection

[Glenn E. Meyer]

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-to-california-gun-control

Not being a Constitutional lawyer, the implications of this are beyond my simple understanding that Kavanaugh was going to save the day.

Do the rationales for rejection come forward? Do we get a count on who was pro or con taking it?

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

No legal beagle but I assume this, "The state urged the court to reject the case, noting that a new sheriff has changed the permit policy.", had something to do with the rejection.

 

[thallub]

For an appeal to be heard US Supreme Court procedures require the concurrence of four justices. Whenever four or more justices concur the case is heard.

What about this case: Fewer than four justices agreed to hear the appeal.

 

[KyJim]

No legal beagle but I assume this, "The state urged the court to reject the case, noting that a new sheriff has changed the permit policy.", had something to do with the rejection.

You are exactly right. The Supremes don't hear moot cases.

 

[Armed_Chicagoan]

I read about this case a while back on some other gun blog, and IIRC the opinion then was this was a bad case for the SCOTUS because it was overly broad and the appeal was poorly written. There's better cases in the pipeline for SCOTUS to bite on.