The District Court Failed To Address Plaintiffs? Arguments.
The District Court Failed To Address Plaintiffs? Arguments.This is a brilliant piece of lawyering between the Emerson judges and the Parker counsel. (Not that this was planned, but I remember commenting on what the Emerson decision set up when the appeals court decision was published, and the Parker counsel has made brilliant use of it).
Consider: The Emerson decision in the appeals court upheld the Lautenberg restrictions on firearms possession as having the minimal amount of due process required to validate the infringement of a 2nd Amendment right to possess arms. In the course of deciding this, they reached the merits of the 2nd Amendment claims and found in favor of an individual right with extensive and detailed analysis.
This means the government won't be inclined to appeal; after all, they won the case and got their conviction. The plaintiff appealed, but the Supreme Court was free to deny certiorari. Doing so leaves the original decision in place. The original decision is a 5th-circuit appellate-level ruling (en banc if I recall correctly) that has extensive analysis of the 2nd Amendment claim and finds for an individual right, all of which was necessary in order to examine and eventually reject Emerson's claim. Because of this, the entire 5th Circuit now has an individual right precedent on the books that lower courts are bound by.
That sets up a long-term circuit split (with the 9th Circuit, which has ruled for a collective right in a number of cases) that can only be resolved by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, it gives us a pro-individual-right precedent to cite in other cases like this one. One of those followup cases will presumably be accepted by the Supreme Court eventually, and that case will likely be a well-crafted civil rights case like Parker rather than a criminal defense (with apologies to Emerson, who most likely does not deserve what he got).
In addition, the way Emerson was decided allowed for a delay in resolving the 2nd Amendment issue at the Supreme Court. When the decision was handed down, remember, we didn't have either Roberts or Alito on the court. Those two judges are presumed to be good votes on the gun issue.
And here we have the Parker attorneys making use of that setup. They are citing Emerson extensively as precedent (admittedly out of circuit precedent, but still valid in the absence of conflicting in-circuit precedent) in the context of a cleanly-crafted case before a circuit that has had 5 years of a (relatively) conservative President and Senate to appoint judges.
Having rejected Plaintiffs? admittedly meritorious arguments regarding Miller ? principally because the Supreme Court had not reviewed collective rights interpretations of that case ? the District Court did little more than cite those interpretations as a basis for its holding. It did not analyze Miller itself, or those cases upon which it relied, most of which, in turn, contain virtually no discussion of Miller either.12Dicta is a term of art for the sections of a legal opinion not necessary to decide the case; those sections don't have value as precedent. It's sometimes difficult to distinguish dicta from the important parts of a decision, especially since most judges try to avoid writing it. The district court refused to consider Emerson as precedent, saying that the individual rights analysis is dicta; yet both 5th circuit courts in Emerson found for an individual right. It cannot be dicta in the lower court because that court overturned the Lautenberg law; the appellate court opinion on an individual right cannot be dicta because it overturned the lower court's decision after reviewing the individual right finding.
Even if the District Court wishes to argue that the individual rights findings in Emerson at the appellate court were dicta because they did not overturn the lower court's findings, that leaves the lower court's findings in place -- and they are equally strong for the individual rights perspective. There's no way for the collective-rights view to effectively neutralize Emerson's individual rights precedent when used to support a carefully crafted civil rights case. The whole thing is a brilliant piece of legal strategy.
Return to the table of contents.
Check the groups below and enter your email address to receive updates by email:
The trackback URL for this entry is: http://triggerfinger.org/weblog/servlet/trackback/7133
No trackbacks have been posted so far.
No comments have been posted so far.