by The US Supreme Court declined to issue an injunction against the new Illinois AWB and magazine ban while the cases make their way through the courts.
NAT. ASSN. FOR GUN RIGHTS, ET AL. V. NAPERVILLE, IL., ET AL.
The application for a writ of injunction pending appeal
presented to Justice Barrett and by her referred to the Court is
denied.
While Judge Stephen McGlynn of the Southern District of Illinois had issued a preliminary injunction, the state of Illinois immediately appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals asking for a stay of his injunction. Normally, the judge who had issued the injunction is given the opportunity to study whether a stay is warranted when the losing party appeals. This was not done in this case as noted by attorneys for the plaintiffs in their responses opposing the motion to stay. Unfortunately, Judge Frank Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit did grant their stay meaning the law remains in effect. His order was then confirmed by a panel of three judges (including himself) from the 7th Circuit.
In the NAGR case filed in the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Virginia Kendall had denied their request for a preliminary motion and their request for a motion to stay while they appealed. Attorneys for NAGR had appealed and the plaintiffs in the other cases from the Southern District had filed amicus briefs in support of their appeal.
I am thinking that the Supreme Court did not want to intervene until such time as decisions were final in the lower courts and the cases had been fully briefed and argued. In the meantime, the plaintiffs in the cases from the Southern District where an injunction had been issued could request an en banc hearing of the stay. According to the Washington Post, hearings are scheduled for next month on these cases.
Well, that sucks.
So anti-gun judges violate their own procedures to make sure that they get the result they want? Or are these judges generally considered impartial? Wondering why they would do this otherwise?
SCOTUS seems to be a stickler for procedure. Skipping an en banc hearing and going to straight to SCOTUS could be why the TRO was denied. If they’re shot down by the full 7th Circuit bench, I’d look for them to go back to SCOTUS. But IANAL and the courts do odd things.
I was referring to this part rather than SCOTUS:
“Normally, the judge who had issued the injunction is given the opportunity to study whether a stay is warranted when the losing party appeals. This was not done in this case as noted by attorneys for the plaintiffs in their responses opposing the motion to stay. Unfortunately, Judge Frank Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit did grant their stay meaning the law remains in effect. His order was then confirmed by a panel of three judges (including himself) from the 7th Circuit.”
So the injunction issuing judge was left out of the process but then the judge who granted the stay was able to be one of three potential votes to keep the stay.
You summarized it 100% correct.