On Monday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered supplemental briefs from the attorneys for both sides in the Nordyke case. They also will accept amicus briefs in support of either party.
The parties were ordered to submit briefs of no longer than 15 pages addressing:
(1) the impact of McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521, 2010 WL 2555188 (U.S. June 28, 2010), on the disposition of this case; and
(2) any other issue properly before this court, including the level of scrutiny that should be applied to the ordinance in question.
Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy noted that:
The express mention of the level of scrutiny suggests that the panel might be willing to reconsider the issue. My guess is still that the panel will largely say what it said before, or perhaps reach much the same result but instead relying on cases such as Webster v. Reproductive Health Servs. (1989), which held that the right to abortion did not include the right to perform abortions in a state-owned hospital (even if the abortions imposed no extra cost on the hospital). But its most recent order makes that far more clear, and a victory for the gun show organizers more likely (though I think on balance still not very likely).
The Court denied the motion for a supplemental briefing by Nordyke as moot. I discussed that brief request here. Despite denying the motion, one must wonder if it spurred them to issue the order for a supplemental briefing.
You can read the full order below: