Supreme Court Calendar: Fill & Download for Free

It may be too late for New York City to get the case against them, NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, dismissed. The Supreme Court has stated that it will not automatically grant a free pass to the city in return for a promise that it will voluntarily change its conduct. If the case is heard and a strict scrutiny ruling emerges, NYC will be unable to reinstate their current ordinances, and many other gun related restrictions across the U.S. will face similarly fatal challenges.To summarize:NYC requires a highly restrictive, hard to obtain, expensive and time consuming license to even own a gun. This “premises" permit allows New Yorkers to possess a firearm in their home or transport it to 7 named shooting ranges. Period. Transport anywhere else, even to places outside NYC where possession is otherwise legal, is banned.For over 6 years, licensed gun owners have sued NYC on the grounds that this is a gross overreach. NYC has fought back and won at the state appellate and supreme court level.The U.S. Supreme Court, in the first major gun-related issue it has agreed to hear since 2010's McDonald vs. Chicago, has accepted this case.NYC and anti-gun advocates now are concerned that if the Supreme Court were to rule that restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms--as a constitutionally enumerated right--must meet a “strict scrutiny” standard, it would lead to gutting many questionable gun control laws nationwide.NYC is now backpedaling to change its ordinances--laws it has defended vigorously for decades--in the hope to get the case off of the Supreme Court's calendar.So far the Supreme Court has refused to let NYC off of the hook. It turned down motions to dismiss or delay the case to ostensibly give the city time to conduct its own review and potential revisions of its ordinances. NYC's latest moves propose to give the NYSRPA exactly what it has been asking for in a last ditch effort to declare the case moot.There is precedent for not giving a party the opportunity to do this if the topic at issue is of public importance otherwise, and that allowing the party to back away from a potential adverse ruling means the challenged conduct could be reinstated by other means.In Knox vs. SEIU, the Supreme Court held that a union's move to retroactively change its policy regarding forced dues payments by non members to support political activities would not insulate it from an ongoing court challenge:[A] live controversy remains. The voluntary cessation of challenged conduct does not ordinarily render a case moot because that conduct could be resumed as soon as the case is dismissed. Since the SEIU continues to defend the fund’s legality, it would not necessarily refrain from collecting similar fees in the future. Even if concerns about voluntary cessation were inapplicable because petitioners did not seek prospective relief, there would still be a live controversy as to the adequacy of the refund notice the SEIU sent pursuant to the District Court’s order.So, barring something exceptional happening, NYC will have it's now unwanted day in court, and if so, there is a good chance they and their amicus will not like the results.

There’s no Constitutional requirement for the Senate to do anything with a particular nomination.Read that again!The Senate’s consent is a requirement for a Justice to be appointed (barring recess appointments), and the Senate alone decides how its consent should be provided.So yes, it was “actually legal” for the Senate majority in 2016 to decide not to give Judge Garland’s nomination a hearing or a vote.And no, the question could not be brought before the Supreme Court.While there was at least one lawsuit about the Garland nomination, it was dismissed because the citizen who filed it couldn’t demonstrate standing. Standing doctrine is a basic component of the U.S. legal system that, in short terms, requires a litigant to demonstrate a specific injury for which the courts are the appropriate redress. But the Senate’s decisions about its nominations calendar don’t represent an injury to the nominee, let alone the average voter.The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in only a few cases. Most of its work is undertaken via its appellate jurisdiction, meaning that a case on this topic would have to work its way through a federal district court and a court of appeals to make it to the Supreme Court. As noted above, that was never especially likely.Under the Constitution, the Senate determines its own rules, and no court can order it to consider any nomination or bill. And if a judge tried, the Senate would be absolutely correct to refuse to comply!There’s plenty of available argument about how the refusal to consider the Garland nomination violated norms, but norms aren’t laws.

Supreme Court will observe holidays from 7th to 12th October on account of Dussehra(Bhagwan Ram's win over Raavan) and also 28th Oct to 2nd Nov on account of Diwali(return of Bhagwan Ram to Ayodhya).Earlier this year, they had a holiday on the occasion of Shri Ram Navami, the birthday of Shri Ram.After these holidays, the court will resume hearing arguments on the existence of Bhagwan Ram.Let this sink inhttps://sci.gov.in/pdf/calendar/...