Blog

Whenever I read about cases being granted cert, I consider them “Cert-Worthy.” Think of the classic “Sponge-Worthy” Seinfeld episode.

Anyway, in addition to McDonald v. Chicago, some other cert grants for today that interest me include (H/T to SCOTUSBlog):

Carr v. United States
Issue: Whether a person may be criminally prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 2250 for failure to register when the defendant’s underlying offense and travel in interstate commerce both predated the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act’s enactment ; whether the Ex Post Facto Clause precludes prosecution under § 2250(a) of a person whose underlying offense and travel in interstate commerce both predated SORNA’s enactment.

Berghuis, Warden v. Smith
Issue: Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in concluding that the Michigan Supreme Court failed to apply “clearly established Federal law” under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 when it rejected a state prisoner’s Sixth Amendment fair cross-section claim and whether the Sixth Circuit erred in applying the comparative-disparity test (for evaluating the difference between the numbers of African Americans in the community as compared to the venires).

Berghuis, Warden v. Thompkins
Issue: Whether the Sixth Circuit expanded the Miranda rule to prevent an officer from attempting to non-coercively persuade a defendant to cooperate where the officer informed the defendant of his rights, the defendant acknowledged that he understood them, and the defendant did not invoke them but did not waive them.

United States v. O’Brien and Burgess
Issue: Whether the mandatory minimum sentence enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) to a 30-year minimum when the firearm is a machinegun is an element of the offense that must be charged and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, or instead a sentencing factor that may be found by a judge by the preponderance of the evidence.

The Question Presented in McDonald v. Chicago is:

“Whether the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable to the States, thereby invalidating ordinances prohibiting possession of handguns in the home.”

This is HUGE!

Alan Gura for the Petitioner, as well as several of the leading Amici have all briefed about the Privileges or Immunities Clause. That the Justices framed the question to inquire about incorporation through the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause is breathtaking (well to me at least).

Nascent followers of the blog will remember some of my more recent posts on P/I in the context of the 2nd Amendment and the future of the Constitution in 2020.

This question presented will make my work in progress, Opening Pandora’s Box. The Privileges or Immunities Clause and the Constitution in 2020, all the more relevant prior to this case being argued.

Update: I will be attending the Constitution in 2020 Conference in New Haven. If they don’t discuss P/I in light of the 2nd Amendment, I will be sure to ask. Stay tuned for my live blogs.

Update Again: I just saw the link from Instapundit! Thanks for the link!

Update Again (at 1:30 EST). I launched this blog less than 24 hours ago, and I have already received 1,200 hits from Instapundit. This is a real Instalanche! Please help spread the word about my fledgling blog; add me to your RSS Feed, follow me on Twitter, check me out on Facebook, and peruse my published articles on SSRN. Thanks!

Update Again (at 3:53 EST). Just hit 1600 hits! Please also see my new post discussing an ensuing debate over the Privileges or Immunities clause in the comment thread of the Volokh Conspiracy. This issue is just heating up. The oven at this blog has already been preheated. Thanks!

Docket for 08-1521.

This was largely expected but the Supreme Court granted Cert in McDonald v. Chicago. I’ll add some thoughts shortly.