DOCSLIB.ORG

Amicus Brief

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Amicus Brief No. 20-843 In The Supreme Court of the United States -------------------------- ♦ --------------------------- NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., Petitioners, v. KEVIN P. BRUEN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL., Respondents. -------------------------- ♦ -------------------------- On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit -------------------------- ♦ -------------------------- BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS -------------------------- ♦ -------------------------- John W. Whitehead Michael J. Lockerby Douglas R. McKusick Counsel of Record THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE Eli L. Evans 109 Deerwood Road FOLEY & LARDNER LLP Charlottesville, VA 22911 Washington Harbour (434) 987-3888 3000 K Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20007 John Sepehri (202) 945-6079 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP [email protected] 3000 One American Center 600 Congress Avenue W. Bradley Russell, Jr. Austin, TX 78701 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP (512) 542-7000 1 Independent Drive Suite 1300 A.J. Salomone Jacksonville, FL 32202 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP (904) 359-2000 777 East Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53202 (414) 271-2400 Counsel for Amicus Curiae THE LEX GROUPDC i 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. i Suite 500, #5190 i Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 955-0001 i (800) 856-4419 i www.thelexgroup.com i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................ 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................... 1 ARGUMENT ............................................................... 2 I. State Regulation of Second Amendment Rights Should Be Subject to a Heightened Standard of Review ......................................................... 2 II. New York Impermissibly Limits Second Amendment Rights of “the People” to Certain “Special People” ........... 7 III. Historically, “the People” Denied Second Amendment Rights Have Disproportionately Been Minorities ........ 13 IV. The Right to “Bear” Arms Will Be Rendered Superfluous If New York’s “Proper Cause” Requirement Stands ....... 22 CONCLUSION ......................................................... 27 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 U.S. 63 (1982) .......................................... 23 Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516 (1960) ........................................ 11 Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Service Comm’n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557 (1980) .......................................... 4 Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) .......................................... 10 Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249 (1992) ........................................ 23 Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102 (1980) ........................................ 23 Cooper v. Mayor of Savannah, 4 Ga. 68 (1848) ............................................... 14 Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976) .......................................... 4 De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937) ........................................ 10 District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) ................................ passim iii Drake v. Filco, 724 F.3d 426 (3d Cir. 2013) ......................... 6, 7 Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (2001) ...................... 22, 23, 25, 26 E. R.R. Presidents Conf. v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961) ........................................ 11 Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761 (1993) ...................................... 4, 5 F.C.C. v. Beach Comm’c’ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993) .......................................... 3 First Nat’l Bank v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978) ........................................ 10 Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618 (1995) .......................................... 5 Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist. v. B. L., 594 U.S. ___ (2021) ........................................ 10 Marx v. Gen. Revenue Corp., 568 U.S. 371 (2013) ........................................ 26 McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014) .......................................... 3 Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 564 U.S. 91 (2011) .................................... 23, 26 Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125 (1998) ........................................ 24 iv NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982) ........................................ 11 Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n., 475 U.S. 1 (1986) ............................................ 10 Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017) ...................................... 3 Silvester v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 945, 200 L. Ed. 2d 293 (2018) ..... 5, 6 State v. Newsom, 27 N.C. 250 (1844).......................................... 14 United States v. Menasche, 348 U.S. 528 (1955) ........................................ 23 United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) .............................. 8, 11, 12 Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) ........................................ 23 Young v. Hawaii, 896 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2018) ........................ 24 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U.S. CONST. amend. I ................................ 8, 10, 11, 12 U.S. CONST. amend. II ...................................... passim U.S. CONST. amend. IV ............................. 8, 11, 12, 13 U.S. CONST. amend. XIV ............................................. 4 v STATUTES 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) ............................................... 25 1866 Miss. LAWS ch. 23, § 1, 165 (1865) ................. 14 N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2) ........................................ 9 OTHER AUTHORITIES 1 Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) (reprinted 1978) ........................................................ 24 2 THE STATUTES AT LARGE; BEING A COLLECTION OF ALL THE LAWS OF VIRGINIA, FROM THE FIRST SESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE, IN THE YEAR 1619 (W.W. Henning ed., 1823) ........................................ 13 7 STATUTES AT LARGE OF SOUTH CAROLINA (D.J. McCord ed. 1836-1873) ............... 13 Audio Recording of Telephone Call from President Lyndon B. Johnson to Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley, Citation No. 10414, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, Univ. of Tex., archived at The Miller Center, Univ. of Va. (July 19, 1966), http://millercenter.org/presidentialrecordings/ lbj-wh6607.02-10414 (last visited Feb. 14, 2016) .... 19 Checklist Prior to Applying, Firearms Owners Identification (FOID), ILLINOIS STATE POLICE (Oct. 9 2014), https://www.ispfsb.com/Public/FOID.aspx ...................... 21 vi Comment, Carrying Concealed Weapons, 15 VA. L. REG. 391 (1909) ....................................... 18 Firearms Licenses--Handgun License Information, Types of Licenses, NEW YORK POLICE DEP’T, http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/firearms_ licensing/handgun_licensing_information.shtml (last visited Feb. 29, 2016) ....................................... 21 Grant Welker, City Gun Policy in Place, Despite Protests, LOWELL SUN (Jan. 19, 2016), http://www.lowellsun.com/breakingnews/ci_294 06406/city-gun-policy-place-despite-protests........... 22 Gun Control Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213 (1968) ............................................. 18-19 J. Baxter Stegall, The Curse of Ham: Disarmament through Discrimination-The Necessity of Applying Strict Scrutiny to Second Amendment Issues in order to Prevent Racial Discrimination by States and Localities through Gun Control Laws, 11 LIBERTY U. L. LAW REVIEW 271 (2016) ....................... passim James B. Browning, The North Carolina Black Code, 15 J. OF NEGRO HIST. 461 (1930), http://www.jstor.org/stable/2714207 ............ 14 Jennifer Maas, D.C. man quietly transfers legal handguns, WASHINGTON TIMES (August 9, 2009) https://www.washingtontimes.com/ news/2009/aug/09/dc-man-quietly-transfers- legal-handguns/ ........................................................ 20 vii Joe M. Richardson, Florida Black Codes, 47 THE FLORIDA HISTORICAL QUARTERLY 365 (1969), http://www.jstor.org/stable/30140241 ...................... 14 Kates, Toward A History of Handgun Prohibition in the United States, RESTRICTING HANDGUNS: THE LIBERAL SKEPTICS SPEAK OUT (D. Kates ed. 1979) ................................................... 17 N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) .............. 24 Patent Act of 1952, § 282 .......................................... 26 Record of Telephone Call from President Lyndon B. Johnson to Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley, Citation No. 10414, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, Univ. of Tex. (July 19, 1966), http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/ johnson/archives.hom/Dictabelt.hom/lbj_recor dings/6607/wh10414.pdf ........................................... 19 Stefan B. Tahmassebi, Gun Control and Racism, 2 GEO. MASON U. CIV. RTS. L.J. 67 (1991) .......................................... 13, 14, 17, 18 Stephen P. Halbrook, SECURING CIVIL RIGHTS: FREEDMEN, THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS (2010) ............................................ 16, 17 Thomas M. Cooley, The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America (1880) .......................................................... 24 viii W.E.B. Dubois, BLACK RECONSTRUCTION: AN ESSAY TOWARD A HISTORY OF THE PART WHICH BLACK FOLK PLAYED IN THE ATTEMPT TO RECONSTRUCT DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA, 1860-1880 (1935) ........................ 15-16 1 INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE1 The Rutherford Institute (the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Promoting Accuracy and Fairness in the Use of Government Watch Lists
    STATEMENT ON PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS BY THE COALITION TO DEFEND CHECKS AND BALANCES AN INITIATIVE OF THE CONSTITUTION PROJECT The Constitution Project 1025 Vermont Avenue, NW Third Floor Washington, DC 20005 202-580-6920 (phone) 202-580-6929 (fax) [email protected] www.constitutionproject.org STATEMENT ON PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS BY THE COALITION TO DEFEND CHECKS AND BALANCES We are members of the Constitution Project’s Coalition to Defend Checks and Balances. We are former government officials and judges, scholars, and other Americans who are deeply concerned about the risk of permanent and unchecked presidential power, and the accompanying failure of Congress to exercise its responsibility as a separate and independent branch of government. We write to express our concerns about certain uses of presidential signing statements that we believe greatly increase this risk. We applaud Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter for calling a hearing to focus attention on an issue that goes to the very heart of our system of government. Presidential signing statements – formal expressions of the views of a President regarding legislation that he has just signed into law – are nearly as old as the Republic. There is nothing inherently troubling about them. The question is how they are used. Throughout history, signing statements have been used to thank supporters, provide reasons for signing a bill, and express satisfaction or, on occasion, displeasure with legislation passed by Congress. More recently, Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton have used signing statements as a tool to express constitutional and other objections to legislation, influence judicial interpretation, and otherwise advance policy goals.
    [Show full text]
  • No. 17-249 John W. Whitehead Counsel
    No. 17-249 IN THE ___________ AMY YOUNG and JOHN SCOTT, as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Andrew Lee Scott, deceased, and MIRANDA MAUCK, individually, Petitioners, v. GARY S. BORDERS, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Lake County Florida, and RICHARD SYLVESTER, in his individual capacity, Respondents. ___________ ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT __________ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND BRIEF OF THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS __________ John W. Whitehead Counsel of Record Douglas R. McKusick THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE 923 Gardens Boulevard Charlottesville, VA 22901 (434) 978-3888 [email protected] [email protected] Lantagne Legal Printing 801 East Main Street Suite 100 Richmond VA 23219 (800) 847-0477 1 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.2(b), The Rutherford Institute respectfully moves for leave to file the attached brief as amicus curiae supporting the Petitioners. All parties were provided with time- ly notice of amicus’ intent to file as required by Rule 37.2(a). Counsel of record for the Petitioners grant- ed consent to the filing of this amicus curiae brief. Counsel of record for the Respondents denied con- sent to the filing of this amicus curiae brief. The interest of amicus arises from its com- mitment to protecting the civil rights and liberties of all persons and defending advancing the laws and Constitution of the United States as a bulwark against abuses of government power.
    [Show full text]
  • 14-720 Reply Brief
    NO. 14-720 In the Supreme Court of the United States JOHN DARIANO; DIANNA DARIANO, on behalf of their minor child, M.D.; KURT FAGERSTROM; JULIE ANN FAGERSTROM, on behalf of their minor child, D.M.; KENDALL JONES; JOY JONES, on behalf of their minor child, D.G., Petitioners, v. MORGAN HILL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; NICK BODEN, in his official capacity as Principal, Live Oak High School; MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, in his individual and official capacity as Assistant Principal, Live Oak High School, Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS ROBERT JOSEPH MUISE WILLIAM JOSEPH Counsel of Record BECKER, JR. American Freedom Law Center Freedom X P.O. Box 131098 11500 Olympic Blvd. Ann Arbor, MI 48113 Suite 400 (734) 635-3756 Los Angeles, CA 90064 [email protected] (310) 636-1018 ERIN MERSINO Affiliated Counsel with Thomas More Law Center The Rutherford Institute 24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive Counsel for Petitioners P.O. Box 393 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 (734) 827-2001 Becker Gallagher · Cincinnati, OH · Washington, D.C. · 800.890.5001 i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES................... ii INTRODUCTION........................... 1 REVIEW OF RELEVANT FACTS .............. 3 ARGUMENT IN REPLY...................... 7 I. The Ninth Circuit Misapplied Tinker and Allowed a Heckler’s Veto to Silence Protected Student Speech .......................... 7 II. This Case Is the Ideal Vehicle for Deciding the Question Presented...................... 11 CONCLUSION ............................ 13 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ....................... 3 Bernhardt v. Cnty. of L.A., 279 F.3d 862 (9th Cir.
    [Show full text]
  • Thursday April 6, 1995
    4±6±95 Thursday Vol. 60 No. 66 April 6, 1995 Pages 17433±17624 Briefings on How To Use the Federal Register For information on briefings in Washington, DC, and Salt Lake City, UT, see announcement on the inside cover of this issue. federal register 1 II Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 1995 SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES PUBLIC Subscriptions: Paper or fiche 202±512±1800 FEDERAL REGISTER Published daily, Monday through Friday, Assistance with public subscriptions 512±1806 (not published on Saturdays, Sundays, or on official holidays), by Online: the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Telnet swais.access.gpo.gov, login as newuser <enter>, no Administration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register > Act (49 Stat. 500, as amended; 44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and the password <enter ; or use a modem to call (202) 512±1661, login as swais, no password <enter>, at the second login as regulations of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register > > (1 CFR Ch. I). Distribution is made only by the Superintendent of newuser <enter , no password <enter . Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC Assistance with online subscriptions 202±512±1530 20402. Single copies/back copies: The Federal Register provides a uniform system for making Paper or fiche 512±1800 available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Assistance with public single copies 512±1803 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and Executive Orders and Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published Subscriptions: by act of Congress and other Federal agency documents of public interest.
    [Show full text]
  • The Discriminatory History of Gun Control David Babat University of Rhode Island
    University of Rhode Island DigitalCommons@URI Senior Honors Projects Honors Program at the University of Rhode Island 2009 The Discriminatory History of Gun Control David Babat University of Rhode Island Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/srhonorsprog Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Babat, David, "The Discriminatory History of Gun Control" (2009). Senior Honors Projects. Paper 140. http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/srhonorsprog/140http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/srhonorsprog/140 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors Program at the University of Rhode Island at DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for inclusion in Senior Honors Projects by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact [email protected]. David Babat [email protected] The Discriminatory History of Gun Control Introduction Gun control in the United States is based on a long history of discrimination which continues to this day. While blacks were the first targets of gun control measures, different racial and ethnic minorities have been targeted over time, and today the poor now face economic discrimination in many gun control laws. Gun control may be portrayed as a measure to reduce crime,1 but even in its earliest forms firearms regulation has been used as a means to control specific societal groups by keeping them from possessing weapons. The first selectively restrictive gun control legislation was enacted in the pre-Revolution South and primarily aimed at keeping free blacks from owning firearms and maintaining a white monopoly on power. Many different forms of gun control laws were implemented before and after the Revolution to keep firearms out of African-American hands.
    [Show full text]
  • From Social Welfare to Social Control: Federal War in American Cities, 1968-1988
    From Social Welfare to Social Control: Federal War in American Cities, 1968-1988 Elizabeth Kai Hinton Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2013 © 2012 Elizabeth Kai Hinton All rights reserved ABSTRACT From Social Welfare to Social Control: Federal War in American Cities, 1968-1988 Elizabeth Hinton The first historical account of federal crime control policy, “From Social Welfare to Social Control” contextualizes the mass incarceration of marginalized Americans by illuminating the process that gave rise to the modern carceral state in the decades after the Civil Rights Movement. The dissertation examines the development of the national law enforcement program during its initial two decades, from the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, which established the block grant system and a massive federal investment into penal and juridical agencies, to the Omnibus Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, which set sentencing guidelines that ensured historic incarceration rates. During this critical period, Presidential Administrations, State Departments, and Congress refocused the domestic agenda from social programs to crime and punishment. To challenge our understanding of the liberal welfare state and the rise of modern conservatism, “From Social Welfare to Social Control” emphasizes the bipartisan dimensions of punitive policy and situates crime control as the dominant federal response to the social and demographic transformations brought about by mass protest and the decline of domestic manufacturing. The federal government’s decision to manage the material consequences of rising unemployment, subpar school systems, and poverty in American cities as they manifested through crime reinforced violence within the communities national law enforcement legislation targeted with billions of dollars in grant funds from 1968 onwards.
    [Show full text]
  • Gun Control Legislation
    Gun Control Legislation William J. Krouse Specialist in Domestic Security and Crime Policy February 3, 2011 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL32842 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Gun Control Legislation Summary Congress has debated the efficacy and constitutionality of federal regulation of firearms and ammunition, with strong advocates arguing for and against greater gun control. The tragic shootings in Tucson, AZ, on January 8, 2011, in which six people were killed and 13 wounded, including Representative Gabrielle Giffords, could prompt the 112th Congress to examine issues related to the shooter’s mental illness and drug use and his use of large capacity ammunition feeding devices (LCAFDs) (see H.R. 308 and S. 32), as well as a proposal to ban firearms within the proximity of certain high-level federal officials (see H.R. 496). This report provides basic firearms-related statistics, an overview of federal firearms law, and a summary of legislative action in the 111th Congress and selected legislative action in the 110th Congress that involved issues revisited in the 111th Congress. The report concludes with a discussion of other salient issues that have generated significant congressional interest in the past, including the 1994-2004 LCAFD ban. During the 111th Congress, the gun control debate was colored by two key Supreme Court findings. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court found that the District of Columbia (DC) handgun ban violated an individual’s right under the Second Amendment to lawfully possess a firearm in his home for self-defense.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief for Amnesty International USA, the Center for Constitutional Rights
    No. 15-118 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JESUS C. HERNANDEZ, et al., Petitioners, v. JESUS MESA, JR., Respondent. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit --------------------------------- --------------------------------- BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA, THE CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST, AND THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS --------------------------------- --------------------------------- HOPE METCALF BRENT M. ROSENTHAL Counsel of Record ROSENTHAL WEINER LLP 127 Wall Street 12221 Merit Drive, Suite 1640 New Haven, CT 06511 Dallas, TX 75251 (203) 432-9404 (214) 871-6600 [email protected] [email protected] DIALA SHAMAS 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, CA 94305 (650) 725-1797 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Authorities ............................................. ii Interest of Amici Curiae ...................................... 1 Summary of Argument ........................................ 2 Argument ............................................................. 5 Conclusion ............................................................ 15
    [Show full text]
  • Gun Control Legislation
    Gun Control Legislation William J. Krouse Specialist in Domestic Security and Crime Policy November 14, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL32842 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Gun Control Legislation Summary Congress has debated the efficacy and constitutionality of federal regulation of firearms and ammunition, with strong advocates arguing for and against greater gun control. In the wake of the July 20, 2012, Aurora, CO, theater mass shooting, in which 12 people were shot to death and 58 wounded (7 of them critically) by a lone gunman, it is likely that there will be calls in the 112th Congress to reconsider a 1994 ban on semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices that expired in September 2004. There were similar calls to ban such feeding devices (see S. 436/H.R. 1781) following the January 8, 2011, Tucson, AZ, mass shooting, in which 6 people were killed and 14 wounded, including Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who was grievously wounded. These calls could be amplified by the August 5, 2012, Sikh temple shooting in Milwaukee, WI, in which six worshipers were shot to death and three wounded by a lone gunman. The 112th Congress continues to consider the implications of Operation Fast and Furious and allegations that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) mishandled that Phoenix, AZ-based gun trafficking investigation. On June 28, 2012, the House passed a resolution (H.Res. 711) citing Attorney General Eric Holder with contempt for his failure to produce additional, subpoenaed documents related to Operation Fast and Furious to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States ______ROXANNE TORRES, Petitioner, V
    No. 19 -292 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ___________ ROXANNE TORRES, Petitioner, v. JANICE MADRID AND RICHARD WILLIAMSON, Respondents. ___________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ___________ BRIEF OF THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER ___________ JOHN W. WHITEHEAD JEFFREY T. GREEN* DOUGLAS R. MCKUSICK JOHN L. GIBBONS THE RUTHERFORD SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP INSTITUTE 1501 K Street NW 109 Deerwood Road Washington, DC 20005 Charlottesville, VA 22911 (202) 736-8000 (434) 978-3888 [email protected] BARBARA E. BERGMAN SARAH O’ROURKE SCHRUP NATIONAL ASSOCIATION NORTHWESTERN SUPREME OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE COURT PRACTICUM LAWYERS 375 East Chicago Avenue 1201 East Speedway Chicago, IL 60611 Boulevard (312) 503-0063 Tucson, AZ 85721 (520) 621-3984 Counsel for Amici Curiae February 7, 2020 * Counsel of Record ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED ..................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ............................ 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ....................... 2 ARGUMENT ............................................................ 2 I. IF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT APPLY HERE, MS. TORRES WILL HAVE NO REMEDY AT ALL ..................... 2 II. THE DECISION BELOW CONTRADICTS THIS COURT’S JURISPRUDENCE ........... 9 III. THE TENTH CIRCUIT’S RULING EX- PANDS THE UNJUSTIFIABLY SIGNIFI- CANT DISPARITY THAT ALREADY EX- ISTS BETWEEN LIABILITY FOR CIVIL- IANS AND FOR POLICE OFFICERS ........ 12 CONCLUSION ........................................................ 17 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page Adams v. Commonwealth, 534 S.E.2d 347 (Va. Ct. App. 2000) .................................... 14 Ashby v. White (1703) 92 Eng. Rep. 126; 2 Ld. Raym. 938 ........................................... 8 Baker v.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Homicide Research Working Group Meetings, 1997 and 1998
    T O EN F J TM U R ST U.S. Department of Justice A I P C E E D B O J C S F A V Office of Justice Programs F M O I N A C I J S R E BJ G O OJJ DP O F PR National Institute of Justice JUSTICE National Institute of Justice Research Forum Proceedings of the Homicide Research Working Group Meetings, 1997 and 1998 1997: Policy, Practice, and Homicide Research 1998: Bridging the Gaps: Collaborations on Lethal Violence Research, Theory, and Prevention Policy U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street N.W. Washington, DC 20531 Janet Reno Attorney General Raymond C. Fisher Associate Attorney General Laurie Robinson Assistant Attorney General Noël Brennan Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jeremy Travis Director, National Institute of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice World Wide Web Site World Wide Web Site http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij Proceedings of the Homicide Research Working Group Meetings, 1997 and 1998 May 1999 NCJ 175709 Jeremy Travis Director Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Table of Contents 1997: Policy, Practice, and Homicide Research......................................1 Discussion 1997 Keynote Kick-Off: What Works? David Kennedy...............................................................3 Building Bridges Between Research and Practice: Youth Violence Prevention Rich Rosenfeld and Troy Miles Anthony Braga, David Kennedy, and Tito Whittington Don Faggiani and Colleen McLaughlin.............................................4 Bridging the Gaps for the Virginia “Cradle-to-Grave” Homicide Project Colleen R.
    [Show full text]
  • Precedential United States Court Of
    Case: 07-4465 Document: 003110560159 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2011 PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 07-4465 JUSTIN LAYSHOCK, a minor, by and through his parents; DONALD LAYSHOCK; CHERYL LAYSHOCK, individually and on behalf of their son v. HERMITAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT KAREN IONTA, District Superintendent; ERIC W. TROSCH, Principal Hickory High School, CHRIS GILL, Co-Principal Hickory High School, all in their official and individual capacity Hermitage School District, Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Civ. No. 06-cv-00116) District Judge: Hon. Terrence F. McVerry Argued on December 10, 2008 Opinion Filed on February 4, 2010 1 Case: 07-4465 Document: 003110560159 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2011 Opinion Vacated and Petition for Rehearing En Banc Granted on April 9, 2010 Rehearing En Banc Ordered for June 3, 2010 Argued En Banc on June 3, 2010 Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, SLOVITER, SCIRICA, RENDELL, BARRY, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN, GREENAWAY, VANASKIE and ROTH, Circuit Judges. (Opinion filed: June 13, 2011) ANTHONY G. SANCHEZ, ESQ. (Argued) CHRISTINA LANE, ESQ. Andrews & Price 1500 Ardmore Boulevard, Suite 506 Pittsburgh, PA 15221 Attorneys for Appellant, Hermitage School District SEAN A. FIELDS, ESQ. Associate Counsel Pennsylvania School Boards Association 400 Bent Creek Boulevard P.O. Box 2042 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Amicus Curiae, Pennsylvania School Board Association, filed in support of Appellant, Hermitage School District KIM M. WATTERSON, ESQ. 2 Case: 07-4465 Document: 003110560159 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/13/2011 RICHARD T. TING, ESQ.
    [Show full text]