Back to the Drawing Board on DC Gun Laws

[Ben]

APS Lawyers please explain, but it looks like Palmer vs DC has been temporarily invalidated.

http://twitchy.com/2015/12/15/judge-who-struck-down-d-c-gun-regulations-wasnt-authorized-to-hear-case/

[T.O.M.]

Ben, the article you linked to confused me.  At one point it said that the A.G. found the judge from New York had no jurisdiction and set aside the decision.  A.G. couldn't do that, only a higher court could set aside a lower court decision, and definitely not a party to the case.

I tried finding a different article, but failed.  I'll dig more.  Something smells funny here.  I don't know of a single judge that will take a case, especially out of district, without paperwork granting authority of at least an appointment for that specific matter.

[zxcvbob]

Ben, the article you linked to confused me.  At one point it said that the A.G. found the judge from New York had no jurisdiction and set aside the decision.  A.G. couldn't do that, only a higher court could set aside a lower court decision, and definitely not a party to the case.

I tried finding a different article, but failed.  I'll dig more.  Something smells funny here.  I don't know of a single judge that will take a case, especially out of district, without paperwork granting authority of at least an appointment for that specific matter.

I can't tell who the "we" is in this: http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/12-15-15%20dc%20circuit%20wrenn.pdf  There are no signatures.

[T.O.M.]

Bob, can't tell who the judges were, but this decision is a big help.  It clarifies that Judge Scullin was properly appointed in Palmer, but that the clerk failed ti follow proper procedure in the new case by sending it off to him without a certification of appointment signed by the Chief Justice.  It may sound petty, but this protects the sanctity of each district.  Now, the remedy is to have the Chief sign off on the appointment,  and let Judge Scullin refile his decision.

As to Palmer, it is still good law.

[Ben]

Now, the remedy is to have the Chief sign off on the appointment,  and let Judge Scullin refile his decision.

As to Palmer, it is still good law.

Is that, for want of a better expression, a "common occurrence"? That is, would it be something that's fixed the same way as say, accidentally putting the wrong info into a court document or forgetting a signature or something, or could someone be a jerk and make it take a long while to rectify?

[T.O.M.]

Is that, for want of a better expression, a "common occurrence"? That is, would it be something that's fixed the same way as say, accidentally putting the wrong info into a court document or forgetting a signature or something, or could someone be a jerk and make it take a long while to rectify?

This isn't too common an occurrence, but does happen on occasion.  Basically, you had someone use common sense and just send the matter to Judge Scullin to save time and effort.  A few years back, I did some work for a court system that only had two judges.  By court rule, cases were assigned by a roll of a pair of dice.  Odd number, went to Judge A, even number and it went to Judge B.  One day, a case was filed against a defendant who had sued Judge B.  Clerk, knowing this had happened and recognizing the conflict, assigned the case directly to Judge A.  Court of Appeals reversed because the clerk did not have authority to make a specific assignment, so it was not properly assigned to a judge.  Should have rolled the dice and sent the case based on the rule, and let the judges work out the impact of any issues.

Here are some of the possibilities in the  Sentile case:

1. Chief Justice does not make the appointment to Scullin, so case starts over from the beginning on a new judge's docket.
2. The case still gets assigned to Judge Scullin, but starts over from the beginning because the parties don't agree to allow the Judge to consider what was already filed and presented on the issue.
3. Case gets assigned to Scullin and he decides to start it over from the beginning.
4. Case gets assigned to Scullin, and the parties agree that he can rule based on what was already presented.

In the real world, the last option (#4) would be the most likely outcome.  Saves everyone time and money, and gets the case headed to the next step, the appeal, sooner rather than later.  But, now that I consider that it's DC, it's the current administration, and it involves firearms, I'm thinking that #2 is the likely outcome.  Chief Justice will make the appointment.  AG's office will not consent to the prior information/evidence being admitted for Scullin's ruling,

[Ben]

Thanks Chris, that explains it so even I can understand. 

Sadly, I'm pessimistic and agree that with it being DC, they will try for #2.

[T.O.M.]

Yeah, Ben, real lawyers with real jobs would agree to allowing all of the previous record to come in and allow the judge to rule from that.  After all, the facts and evidence won't have changed.  But since they want to fight this every bit of the way, I'm sure the AGs will make it go through the full process again, looking for additional errors and arguments to make as to why the Judge was wrong to set aside the restrictions.