DOCSLIB.ORG

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case: 19-55376, 04/01/2021, ID: 12061300, DktEntry: 145, Page 1 of 23 No. 19-55376 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VIRGINIA DUNCAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, V. XAVIER BECERRA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, No. 17-cv-1017-BEN-JLB BRIEF OF TWENTY-TWO STATES AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES ON EN BANC REHEARING Jeff Landry Mark Brnovich Louisiana Attorney General Arizona Attorney General Elizabeth B. Murrill Joseph A. Kanefield Solicitor General Chief Deputy & Chief of Staff Josiah Kollmeyer Brunn W. Roysden III Assistant Solicitor General Solicitor General Louisiana Department of Justice Michael S. Catlett 1885 N. Third Street Deputy Solicitor General Baton Rouge, LA 70804 Counsel of Record (225) 205-8009 OFFICE OF THE ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL 2005 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85004 (602) 542-7751 April 1, 2021 [email protected] Counsel for Amici States (Additional counsel listed after signature block) Case: 19-55376, 04/01/2021, ID: 12061300, DktEntry: 145, Page 2 of 23 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .............................................................................. 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................ 3 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................ 4 I. California’s Ban On The Affected Magazines Should Not Be Subject To Any Interest Balancing Test. ..................................................................... 4 A. The Correct Test Under Heller. ................................................................. 4 B. An Interest Balancing Approach Would Be Inconsistent With Heller And Its Progeny. .............................................................................6 C. An Interest Balancing Approach Would Reduce Clarity In The Law And Promote Subjectivity. ................................................................ 9 II. The Act Is Unconstitutional Because It Is A Categorical Ban On “Arms” Commonly Used By Law-Abiding Citizens For Lawful Purposes. ....................................................................................................... 12 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 16 i Case: 19-55376, 04/01/2021, ID: 12061300, DktEntry: 145, Page 3 of 23 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Ass’n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs Inc. v. Att’y Gen. of N.J., 910 F.3d 106 (3d. Cir. 2018) ..................................................................................8 Ass’n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs Inc. v. Att’y Gen. of N.J., 974 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2020) ...................................................................... 8, 14, 15 Binderup v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 836 F.3d 336 (3d Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................8 Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027 (2016) ................................................................................ 7, 8, 12 District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) ..................................................................................... passim Duncan v. Becerra, 265 F. Supp. 3d 1106 (S.D. Cal. 2017) ............................................................9, 10 Duncan v. Becerra, 970 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2020) .............................................................................10 Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2015)................................................................................13 Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................8, 14 Jackson v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014)................................................................................14 Kachalsky v. Cty. of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012) ...............................................................................9, 16 Luis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1083 (2016) .........................................................................................13 Mance v. Sessions, 896 F.3d 390 (5th Cir. 2018)..................................................................................8 McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) ..................................................................................... passim Ramirez v. Massachusetts, 94 N.E.3d 809 (Mass. 2018) ..................................................................................7 ii Case: 19-55376, 04/01/2021, ID: 12061300, DktEntry: 145, Page 4 of 23 Silvester v. Harris, 843 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 2016)..................................................................................6 United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) .....................................................................................9 United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) .............................................................................................11 Young v. Hawaii, —F.3d—, No. 12-17808, 2021 WL 1114180 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2021) ..............13 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U.S. Const. amend. II ................................................................................................. 4 OTHER AUTHORITIES Daniel Peabody, Target Discrimination: Protecting the Second Amendment Rights of Women and Minorities, 48 Ariz. St. L.J. 883 (2016) ..................................................................................10 iii Case: 19-55376, 04/01/2021, ID: 12061300, DktEntry: 145, Page 5 of 23 INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE This brief is filed on behalf of the states of Arizona, Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming (the “Amici States”). The undersigned are their respective states’ chief law enforcement or chief legal officers and have authority to file briefs on behalf of the states they represent. The Amici States through their Attorneys General have a unique perspective that will aid the en banc Court.1 First, the Attorneys General have experience protecting public safety and citizen interests in states where the affected magazines are lawfully possessed and used. The Amici States the Attorneys General serve are among the forty-one states that permit the standard, eleven plus capacity magazines that California has banned (the “Affected Magazines”) and have advanced their compelling interests in promoting public safety, preventing crime, and reducing criminal firearm violence without a magazine ban such as the one here. The experience in other states shows that the Affected Magazines are common to the point of ubiquity among law-abiding gun owners and their use 1 The Amici States submit this brief solely as amici curiae. The undersigned certifies that no parties’ counsel authored this brief, and no person or party other than the undersigned Attorneys General or their offices made a monetary contribution to the brief’s preparation or submission. 1 Case: 19-55376, 04/01/2021, ID: 12061300, DktEntry: 145, Page 6 of 23 promotes public safety. Calling the Affected Magazines “large-capacity” is a misnomer—they often hold only in the range of eleven to fifteen rounds (in no way a large absolute number) and come standard with many of the most popular firearms. There is nothing sinister about citizens bearing the Affected Magazines. Law-abiding citizens bearing the Affected Magazines with lawful firearms benefits public safety, counter-balances the threat of illegal gun violence, and helps make our streets safer. The Amici States believe that in holding California Penal Code 32310 unconstitutional (“the Act”) the Court correctly applied the U.S. Constitution, thereby safeguarding the Second Amendment rights of millions of citizens. The Attorneys General submit this brief on behalf of the Amici States they serve to provide their unique perspective on these constitutional questions and further protect the critical rights at issue, including the rights and interests of their own citizens. The Amici States join together on this brief not merely because they disagree with California’s policy choice, but because the challenged law represents a policy choice that is foreclosed by the Second Amendment. States may enact reasonable firearm regulations that do not categorically ban common arms core to the Second Amendment, but the challenged law fails as it is prohibitive rather than regulatory. California should not be allowed to invade its own citizens’ 2 Case: 19-55376, 04/01/2021, ID: 12061300, DktEntry: 145, Page 7 of 23 constitutional rights, and this Court should not imperil the rights of citizens in this Circuit and other states with its analysis. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Amici States urge the Court to affirm the trial court’s decision that the California law banning magazines carrying more than ten rounds of ammunition violates the Second Amendment. In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a balancing approach to determine the constitutionality on an outright ban of firearms protected under the Second Amendment. Instead, the Court held that a ban on firearms protected
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sean D. Reyes Attorney General
    STATE OF UTAH OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SEAN D. REYES ATTORNEY GENERAL Spencer E. Austin Ric Cantrell Tyler R. Green Brian L. Tarbet Chief Criminal Deputy Chief of Staff Solicitor General Chief Civil Deputy August 28, 2020 Donald J. Trump The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500 RE: H.R.4172, The National Child ID Act Dear Mr. President, First, thank you for your steadfast and continued leadership and all you do to keep families safe across America. The purpose of this letter is to ask for your support through any federal agency including the United States Department of Justice to make available funds, whether those currently identified to fight human trafficking or from other sources, to immediately fortify our defenses as parents throughout America against child exploitation, abduction and human trafficking. Statistics show that more than 800,000 children go missing each year including runaways and those abducted. That is one child gone every 40 seconds. And we are seeing those statistics rise along with child sexual abuse, exploitation and human trafficking. You recently met with our friend and NFL Hall of Fame Player Mike Singletary to discuss a program he and many other Collegiate and NFL Coaches champion called the National Child ID Program. We also support this effort as we fight daily to protect children in our role as state Attorneys General. The Child ID Program began in 1997 with the American Football Coaches Association in response to findings that parents did not have fingerprints or DNA for their children in the case of an emergency or abduction.
    [Show full text]
  • Ks-Ag-21-0185
    February 8, 2021 VIA FACSIMILE Assistant Attorney General Philip Michael Kansas Attorney General’s Office Memorial Hall 120 SW 10th Street, 2nd Floor Topeka, KS 66612-1597 Fax: (785) 296-6296 Re: Kansas Open Records Act Request Dear Assistant Attorney General Michael: Pursuant to the Kansas Open Records Act (KORA), Kan. Stat. §§ 45-215 et seq., American Oversight makes the following request for records. In early December 2020, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit seeking to block various states from casting “unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes” in the Electoral College.1 Seventeen additional states, including Kansas, filed motions backing Texas’s efforts.2 Later public reporting indicated that in the days leading up to Texas’s filing, a group of Republican state attorneys general solicited U.S. Justice Department support from then-Attorney General William Barr. Accordingly, American Oversight seeks records concerning any attempts to petition the U.S. Department of Justice to support efforts to overturn election results. Requested Records American Oversight requests that the Kansas Attorney General’s Office produce the following records within three business days: 1. All email communications (including emails, email attachments, calendar invitations, and calendar attachments) between (a) any of the Kansas Attorney General’s Office officials listed in Column A, below, and (b) any of the external parties listed in Column B, below. 1 Emma Platoff, In New Lawsuit, Texas Contests Election Results in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Tex. Tribune, Dec. 8, 2020, https://www.texastribune.org/2020/12/08/texas-ken-paxton-election-georgia/. 2 Todd J. Gillman, 17 States and Trump Join Texas Request for Supreme Court to Overturn Biden Wins in Four States, Dallas Morning News (Dec.
    [Show full text]
  • Title Here – Option 1
    Post Election Briefing - State Attorneys General Stephen Cobb: Partner, Former Deputy Attorney General of Virginia Jim Schultz: Partner, Former Senior Associate White House Counsel, Former General Counsel to Pennsylvania Governor Bill Shepherd: Partner, Florida’s Former Statewide Prosecutor December 8, 2020 Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP. All Rights Reserved Thank you for joining today’s program • All participants are on mute • Please ask questions via Q&A box • Today’s program is being recorded and will be posted on our website • For technical assistance please reach out to the host via the chat box 2 Today’s Presenters Stephen Cobb Jim Schultz Bill Shepherd Partner Partner Partner Former Deputy Former Senior Associate Florida’s Former Attorney General White House Counsel, Statewide Prosecutor of Virginia Former General Counsel to Pennsylvania Governor 3 The Growing Role of State Attorneys General Looking Back on 2020 The Election Results 2021 – What to Expect 4 Priorities of State Attorneys General During 2020 • Consumer Protection • False Claims Act • Antitrust • Environmental Enforcement Actions • COVID-19 • Data Breach/Data Privacy 5 State Attorney General Race Results . Indiana . Pennsylvania . Todd Rokita (R) defeated Jonathan Weinzapfel (D) . Josh Shapiro* (D) defeated Heather Heidelbaugh (R) . Missouri . Utah . Eric Schmitt* (R) defeated Richard Finneran (D) . Sean D. Reyes* (R) defeated Greg Skordas (D) . Montana . Vermont . Austin Knudsen (R) defeated Ralph Graybill (D) vs. T.J. Donovan* (D) defeated H Brooke Paige (R) . North Carolina . Washington . Josh Stein* (D) defeated Jim O’Neill (R) . Bob Ferguson* (D) defeated Matt Larkin (R) . Oregon . West Virginia . Ellen Rosenblum* (D) defeated Michael Cross (R) . Patrick Morrisey* (R) defeated Sam Brown Petsonk (D) Aside from the 10 races detailed above, Maine’s next state legislature and the governors of New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa are due to appoint new AGs.
    [Show full text]
  • Amended Complaint
    Case 3:21-cv-00065 Document 71 Filed on 06/01/21 in TXSD Page 1 of 59 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION STATE OF TEXAS; STATE OF MONTANA; STATE OF ALABAMA; STATE OF ALASKA; STATE OF ARIZONA; STATE OF ARKANSAS; STATE OF FLORIDA; STATE OF GEORGIA; STATE OF KANSAS; COMMONWEATH OF KENTUCKY; STATE OF INDIANA; STATE OF LOUISIANA; STATE OF Civ. Action No. 3:21-cv-00065 MISSISSIPPI; STATE OF MISSOURI; STATE OF NEBRASKA; STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA; STATE OF OHIO; STATE OF OKLAHOMA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA; STATE OF UTAH; STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; and STATE OF WYOMING, Plaintiffs, v. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., in his official capacity as President of the United States; ANTONY J. BLINKEN, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of State; MERRICK B. GARLAND, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States; Case 3:21-cv-00065 Document 71 Filed on 06/01/21 in TXSD Page 2 of 59 ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; DEB HAALAND, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Interior; JENNIFER GRANHOLM, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Energy; MICHAEL S. REGAN, in his official capacity as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; THOMAS J. VILSACK, in his official capacity as the Secretary of Agriculture; PETE BUTTIGIEG, in his official capacity as Secretary of Transportation; SCOTT A. SPELLMON, in his official capacity as Commanding General of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • August 16, 2017 the Honorable Roger Wicker Chairman Senate
    August 16, 2017 The Honorable Roger Wicker Chairman Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation and the Internet Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation The Honorable Brian Schatz Ranking Member Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation and the Internet Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Honorable Marsha Blackburn Chairman House of Representatives Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Committee on Energy and Commerce The Honorable Michael Doyle Ranking Member House of Representative Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Committee on Energy and Commerce RE: Amendment of Communications Decency Act Dear Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Schatz, Chairman Blackburn, and Ranking Member Doyle: In 2013, Attorneys General from 49 states and territories wrote to Congress, informing it that some courts have interpreted the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (“CDA”) to render state and local authorities unable to take action against companies that actively profit from the promotion and facilitation of sex trafficking and crimes against children. Unfortunately, nearly four years later, this problem persists and these criminal profiteers often continue to operate with impunity. The recent news highlighting the potential complicity of online classified-ad company Backpage.com in soliciting sex traffickers’ ads for its website once again underscores the need 1850 M Street, NW to expand, not limit, the ability of all law-enforcement agencies to fight sex Twelfth Floor Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 326-6000 http://www.naag.org/ trafficking.1 The undersigned Attorneys General once again respectfully request that the United States Congress amend the CDA to affirm that state, territorial, and local authorities retain their traditional jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute those who facilitate illicit acts and endanger our most vulnerable citizens.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court District of Oregon Eugene Division
    Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 515 Filed 07/20/21 Page 1 of 22 STEVE MARSHALL Attorney General of Alabama Edmund G. LaCour Jr. (AL Bar No. 9182-U81L) Solicitor General Thomas A. Wilson (AL Bar No. 1494-D25C) Deputy Solicitor General STATE OF ALABAMA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 501 Washington Ave. Montgomery, AL 36130 Telephone: (334) 242-7300 Fax: (334) 353-8400 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Proposed Defendant-Intervenor [additional counsel listed on State of Alabama signature page] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-AA Plaintiffs, v. PROPOSED DEFENDANT-INTER- VENORS STATES OF ALABAMA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., ALASKA, ARKANSAS, GEORGIA, Defendants. INDIANA, KANSAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, MON- TANA, NEBRASKA, NORTH DA- KOTA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, SOUTH CAROLINA, TEXAS, UTAH, AND WEST VIRGINIA’S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUP- PORT OF MOTION FOR LIM- ITED INTERVENTION. (ECF Nos. 475, 508, 509) Proposed Defendant-Intervenors’ Reply Memo. in Support of Motion for Limited Intervention Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 515 Filed 07/20/21 Page 2 of 22 INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs’ response to the States’1 Motion for Limited Intervention (Doc. 475) confirms that through their ongoing settlement negotiations with Defendants, Plaintiffs seek “a fundamental transformation of this country’s energy system.” Juliana v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159, 1171 (9th Cir. 2020).2 And any such “transformation” would, of course, affect the States. The States thus have an interest in participating in these negotiations, objecting to any potential settlement of Plaintiffs’ claims, and seeking the denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend and file a second amended complaint.
    [Show full text]
  • February 9, 2021 President Joseph R. Biden the White House 1600
    Austin Knudsen ATTORNEY GENERAL February 9, 2021 President Joseph R. Biden The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear President Biden: As the chief legal officers of our states, we write with alarm regarding your unilateral and rushed decision to revoke the 2019 Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. Your decision will result in devastating damage to many of our states and local communities. Even those states outside the path of the Keystone XL pipeline—indeed all Americans—will suffer serious, detrimental consequences. In your January 20, 2021 Executive Order, you concluded that the Keystone XL pipeline “disserves the U.S. national interest.”1 You supported that determination with vague statements about the “climate crisis,” how “[t]he world must be put on a sustainable climate pathway,” and that “[t]he United States must be in a position to exercise vigorous climate leadership ….”2 Nowhere, however, do you explain how killing the Keystone XL pipeline project directly advances the goals of “protect[ing] Americans and the domestic economy from harmful climate impacts.”3 Nor does your decision actually cure any of the climate ills you reference. Observers are thus left with only one reasonable supposition: it is a symbolic act of virtue signaling to special interests and the international community. The real-world costs are devastating. Nationally, your decision will eliminate thousands of well-paying jobs, many of them union jobs. Your order hearkened back to the 2015 determination from the Obama Administration “that the significance of the proposed 1 Exec. Order No. 13990, Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis, 86 Fed.
    [Show full text]
  • August 25, 2021 the Honorable Merrick Garland Attorney General
    MARK BRNOVICH DAVE YOST ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL August 25, 2021 The Honorable Merrick Garland Attorney General 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Re: Constitutionality of Illegal Reentry Criminal Statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1326 Dear Attorney General Garland, We, the undersigned attorneys general, write as chief legal officers of our States to inquire about your intent to appeal the decision in United States v. Carrillo-Lopez, No. 3:20-cr- 00026-MMD-WGC, ECF. 60 (D. Nev. Aug. 18, 2021). As you know, in that decision, Chief Judge Du found unconstitutional 8 U.S.C. § 1326, the statute that criminalizes the illegal reentry of previously removed aliens. We appreciate that you recently filed a notice of appeal, preserving your ability to defend the law on appeal. We now urge you to follow through by defending the law before the Ninth Circuit and (if necessary) the Supreme Court. We ask that you confirm expeditiously DOJ’s intent to do so. Alternatively, if you do not intend to seek reversal of that decision and instead decide to cease prosecutions for illegal reentry in some or all of the country, we ask that you let us know, in writing, so that the undersigned can take appropriate action. Section 1326, as part of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, is unremarkable in that it requires all aliens—no matter their race or country of origin—to enter the country lawfully. In finding the law racially discriminatory against “Latinx persons,” Chief Judge Du made some truly astounding claims, especially considering that, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, Mexico has more legal permanent residents in the United States, by far, than any other country.1 Chief Judge Du determined that, because most illegal reentrants at the border are from Mexico, the law has an impermissible “disparate impact” on Mexicans.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 in the United States District Court for the District Of
    Case 3:21-cv-03009-RAL Document 47 Filed 05/21/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 950 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA CENTRAL DIVISION GOVERNOR KRISTI NOEM, in her ) official capacity as the Governor of ) South Dakota, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 3:21-cv-03009 ) DEB HAALAND, in her official capacity ) as United States Secretary of the ) Interior, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS The States of Kansas, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia move for leave to file the attached amicus brief in support of Plaintiffs. “A district court has inherent authority to allow amicus curiae to participate in proceedings.” Avellino v. Herron, 991 F. Supp. 730, 732 (E.D. Pa. 1998). The proposed amici have an interest in the outcome of this case because their citizens may wish to attend the Mount Rushmore fireworks display or view it on television. The States also have an interest in ensuring that the Department of Interior, which manages land within the States, makes reasoned permitting decisions, unlike the 1 Case 3:21-cv-03009-RAL Document 47 Filed 05/21/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 951 arbitrary and capricious decision at issue here. Given these interests, the States respectfully request this Court grant them leave to file the attached amicus brief. Respectfully submitted, /s/ James E. Moore James E. Moore DEREK SCHMIDT Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith P.C. Kansas Attorney General 300 S.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Status Report: U.S. and Plaintiff States V
    Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 189 Filed 08/27/21 Page 1 of 31 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA United States of America, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 1:20-cv-03010-APM v. HON. AMIT P. MEHTA Google LLC, Defendant. State of Colorado, et al., Plaintiffs, Case. No 1:20-cv-03715-APM v. HON. AMIT P. MEHTA Google LLC, Defendant. JOINT STATUS REPORT In accordance with the Court’s Minute Order dated June 29, 2021, the parties in United States v. Google LLC and State of Colorado v. Google LLC submit the following Joint Status Report summarizing the state of discovery and identifying any issues between the parties, and the parties’ respective positions, that will be raised at the status hearing scheduled for August 31, 2021. I. Case No. 1:20-cv-03010 A. Google’s Discovery of Plaintiffs A summary of Google’s First Set of Requests for Production and prior document Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 189 Filed 08/27/21 Page 2 of 31 productions made by Plaintiffs are set forth in the parties’ earlier Joint Status Reports, including their reports dated February 23 (ECF No. 111), March 26 (ECF No. 124), April 23 (ECF No. 131), May 24 (ECF No. 135), June 24 (ECF No. 149), and July 27 (ECF No. 165). B. Plaintiffs’ Discovery of Google A summary of Plaintiffs’ First and Second Sets of Requests for Production and the document productions made by Google prior to May 24 are set forth in the parties’ earlier Joint Status Reports, including their reports dated February 23 (ECF No.
    [Show full text]
  • Election Insight 2020
    ELECTION INSIGHT 2020 “This isn’t about – yeah, it is about me, I guess, when you think about it.” – President Donald J. Trump Kenosha Wisconsin Regional Airport Election Eve. 1 • Election Insight 2020 Contents 04 … Election Results on One Page 06 … Biden Transition Team 10 … Potential Biden Administration 2 • Election Insight 2020 Election Results on One Page 3 • Election Insight 2020 DENTONS’ DEMOCRATS Election Results on One Page “The waiting is the hardest part.” Election results as of 1:15 pm November 11th – Tom Petty Top Line Biden declared by multiple news networks to be America’s next president. Biden’s Pennsylvania win puts him over 270. Georgia and North Carolina not yet called. Biden narrowly leads in GA while Trump leads in NC. Trump campaign seeks recounts in GA and Wisconsin and files multiple lawsuits seeking to overturn the election results in states where Biden has won. Two January 5, 2021 runoff elections in Georgia will determine Senate control. Senator Mitch McConnell will remain Majority Leader and divided government will continue, complicating the prospects for Biden’s legislative agenda, unless Democrats win both runoff s. Democrats retain their House majority but Republicans narrow the Democrats’ margin with a net pickup of six seats. Incumbents Losing Reelection • Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) • Rep. Harley Rouda (D-CA-48) • Rep. Xochitl Torres Small (D-NM-3) • Sen. Martha McSally (R-AZ) • Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL-26) • Rep. Max Rose (D-NY-11) • Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO) • Rep. Donna Shalala (D-FL-27) • Rep. Kendra Horn (D-OK-5) • Rep.
    [Show full text]
  • May 25, 2021 the Honorable Charles Schumer Majority Leader United
    May 25, 2021 The Honorable Charles Schumer The Honorable A. Mitchell McConnell Majority Leader Minority Leader United States Senate United States Senate 322 Hart Senate Office Building 317 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Richard Durbin The Honorable Charles E. Grassley Chairman Ranking Member Committee on the Judiciary Committee on the Judiciary Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senators: The Second Amendment is the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights. It guarantees our natural God-given right to defend our lives, our families, our property, and our freedom. The confirmation of David Chipman to head the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) is an attack on that right and on the millions of law-abiding gun owners across the country. As state Attorneys General, we took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and protect the rights and freedoms of our constituents. These responsibilities force us to stand in opposition to Mr. Chipman’s nomination and in support of our constituents’ rights. Firearms are far beyond a hobby or a passion. They are a part of our national heritage and everyday life for tens of millions of Americans, particularly those of us who live in rural areas. We use them to hunt, protect livestock, and provide peace of mind when law enforcement may be miles away. This is why Mr. Chipman’s past affiliation with anti-gun organizations and his extreme positions on commonly owned firearms is so concerning to us as attorneys general and why he is unfit to be confirmed as head of the ATF.
    [Show full text]