This case involves California’s one gun per month infringement.
On Dec 18, 2020, nearly 4 years ago, Michelle Nguyen and others filed a complaint against Xavier Becerra, the Attorney General of California asking for injunctive and declaratory relief.
Because this happened before the Bruen opinion issued, it is couched in terms of Heller and levels of scrutiny. Remember, arguing that interest-balancing was wrong was a losing argument at that time.
They claimed that their rights were being infringed because “arms” is plural and limiting the purchase of guns to just one per month is singular. Thus making the law unconstitutional, on its face.
This case was a series of motions and counter motions. Both parties trying to limit what the other party could present as “evidence”. On Dec 6, 2023, three years after the case was filed, a motion hearing was held. This is the place where the parties argue why their motions are better before the judge.
On March 28, 2024, the court issued its judgement. This brings this case to completion at the district level.
The court found for the plaintiffs. The good guys. The court issued an injunction against California Penal Code §§ 27535 and 27540(f) as violating the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.
Knowing the state would appeal, Judge Hayes put a 30-day administrative stay on his ruling. This is perfectly normal.
The state filed their appeal the next day.
The Ninth Circuit administrative panel, continued its unbroken record in Second Amendment cases, issued a stay pending appeal.
Appellants have established a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of this appeal and made a sufficient showing on the relative equities to justify a stay pending appeal.
This is pure spite. The Supreme Court has said, on multiple occasions, how the Winter’s factors are to be addressed. First, the merits of the case, second that irreparable harm, third the balance of equities, and finally that the injunction is in the public interest.
The order by the administrate panel did not address the merits of the case. This is an instant showing of a rogue court.
If the case is a civil rights case, and the party seeking the injunction is likely to win on the merits, the analysis is over. The denial of a civil right is “irreparable harm”. The balance of equities always tips to the party being irreparably harmed, the public has no interest in enforcing an unconstitutional law.
Thus, this admin panel did a crackerjack job of ignoring the law.
The administrative panel issued their stay on April 24, before the administrative stay expired.
The case is then calendared to be heard by a merits panel.
That took place on August 14th, 2024. It was a complete disaster for the state.
There are more than a few channels that have done reviews of the oral arguments.
So how bad were the arguments by the state? Their stay pending appeal was reversed.
The order (Dkt. 9) granting Defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal (Dkt. 3) is REVERSED.
Before: Owens, Bade, and Forrest, Circuit Judges.
It took the merits panel less than a day to issue the order reversing the stay pending appeal, in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
This is a good time to buy stock in heater vendors in hell, it has done froze over.
Comments
2 responses to “When the Arguments Are that Bad: Nguyen v. Bonta”
So when can we expect judges who ignore the clear mandates of SCOTUS (in this case, the administrative panel and the Winter factors, respectively) to be slapped and censured?
No level of appeal is intended to be an automatic win for either side. But that’s what “administrative panels” in the 9th Circuit often are: rubber-stamps for State appeals.
I think we are starting to see it. The dissent in the Fourth Circuit is an example of that slapping down. These judges are used to being able to do this from the shadows. Today, they are being called out and exposed.
Everybody in the Second Amendment community knows that the Ninth is bad. The entire legal community has now been exposed to the fact that there are ZERO Second Amendment wins at the en banc level of the Ninth.
The Supreme Court gets to hand out rulings for The People every few years. 2021/2022 term and 2023/2024 saw a number of those rulings. The issue is always the inferior courts straining to hold on to some thread of their past infringements.