{"id":1141,"date":"2015-12-16T01:39:00","date_gmt":"2015-12-16T01:39:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/2015\/12\/16\/us-appeals-court-tosses-out-dc\/"},"modified":"2019-08-16T18:26:11","modified_gmt":"2019-08-16T18:26:11","slug":"us-appeals-court-tosses-out-dc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/?p=1141","title":{"rendered":"US Appeals Court Tosses Out DC Concealed Carry Ruling On Procedural Grounds"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class='__iawmlf-post-loop-links' style='display:none;' data-iawmlf-post-links='[{&quot;id&quot;:9873,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;http:\\\/\\\/onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com\\\/2015\\\/02\\\/dc-sued-again-over-concealed-carry.html&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:9874,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;http:\\\/\\\/news.yahoo.com\\\/court-throws-ruling-invalidated-washington-gun-limits-163303407.html&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/web-wp.archive.org\\\/web\\\/20240302113229\\\/http:\\\/\\\/news.yahoo.com\\\/court-throws-ruling-invalidated-washington-gun-limits-163303407.html&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[{&quot;date&quot;:&quot;2026-04-18 17:59:09&quot;,&quot;http_code&quot;:200}],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:{&quot;date&quot;:&quot;2026-04-18 17:59:09&quot;,&quot;http_code&quot;:200},&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:9875,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/www.cadc.uscourts.gov\\\/internet\\\/opinions.nsf\\\/275DDC295C5834A785257F1C0056178F\\\/$file\\\/15-7057-1588540.pdf&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;}]'><\/div>\n<p>\nIn a decision today, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia invalidated the ruling in <i><a href=\"http:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com\/2015\/02\/dc-sued-again-over-concealed-carry.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Wrenn v. DC<\/a><\/i>. <i>&nbsp;<\/i>Sr. US District Court Judge Frederick Scullin, Jr. had issued a preliminary injunction against the new &#8220;may-issue&#8221; carry law adopted by the District. <a href=\"http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/court-throws-ruling-invalidated-washington-gun-limits-163303407.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">That ruling had been stayed<\/a> while the Court of Appeals considered DC&#8217;s appeal of the injunction.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.cadc.uscourts.gov\/internet\/opinions.nsf\/275DDC295C5834A785257F1C0056178F\/$file\/15-7057-1588540.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Senior Circuit Judge David Sentelle writing for the Court of Appeals said<\/a> that the case must be overturned on jurisdictional grounds and that they Court was not ruling on the merits of the case. He said based upon a 1937 Supreme Court ruling in <i>Frad v. Kelly<\/i> that a ruling where the judge did not have jurisdiction was null.<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"tr_bq\"><p>\n<i>The controlling fact in this case is the identity of the<br \/>\njudge who decided it in the district court \u2013 The Honorable<br \/>\nSenior United States District Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., of<br \/>\nthe Northern District of New York. The difficulty in this case<br \/>\nis evident from the office of the deciding judge.<b> Judge Scullin<br \/>\nis a Judge of the Northern District of New York, not of the<br \/>\nUnited States District Court for the District of Columbia.<\/b> Under<br \/>\nthe Constitution and the statutes, the President, with the advice<br \/>\nand consent of the Senate, appoints a judge to the district court<br \/>\nof a particular district, where he exercises the jurisdiction of the<br \/>\ncourt.<\/i><br \/>\n<i><br \/><\/i><br \/>\n<i>It is possible for a district judge, including a senior judge,<br \/>\nto lawfully adjudicate matters in another district. However, in<br \/>\norder for a judge to exercise this judicial authority in a district<br \/>\nlocated outside the circuit of his home district, the judge must be<br \/>\n\u201cdesignated and assigned by the Chief Justice.\u201d 28 U.S.C.<br \/>\n\u00a7 294(c)-(d). See also 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 294(e) (\u201cNo retired [i.e.,<br \/>\nsenior] . . . judge shall perform judicial duties except when<br \/>\ndesignated and assigned.\u201d).<\/i><br \/>\n<i><br \/><\/i><br \/>\n<i>Before the visiting judge may be designated and assigned<br \/>\nby the Chief Justice, the chief judge of the receiving district<br \/>\nmust \u201cpresent[] . . . a certificate of necessity.\u201d 28 U.S.C.<br \/>\n\u00a7 294(d). Then, and only then, may the Chief Justice of the<br \/>\nUnited States \u201cdesignate[] and assign[]\u201d the judge duties in the<br \/>\nreceiving district. Id. <b>Although Judge Scullin had served under<br \/>\na properly issued designation, the difficulty in the present case<br \/>\nis that designation was limited to specific and enumerated cases.<br \/>\nThe present litigation is not one of those cases.<\/b><\/i><br \/>\n<i><br \/><\/i><br \/>\n<i>The error in this case is quite understandable. <b>The calendar<br \/>\ncommittee of the district court assigned the matter to Judge<br \/>\nScullin because it deemed the case to be related to another case<br \/>\nover which Judge Scullin presided. The difficulty is, while the<br \/>\nearlier case was within the Chief Justice\u2019s designation, the<br \/>\npresent one is not.<\/b><\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>What this means in practical terms is that the Wrenn case must start over from scratch. A new judge must be appointed for the case and briefs submitted. If there is a good thing coming out of the Court of Appeals ruling, it is that no precedent involving the substance of the case was established.<\/p>\n<div style=\"margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;\" class=\"sharethis-inline-share-buttons\" ><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In a decision today, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia invalidated the ruling in Wrenn&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":2,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[359,2026,1415],"class_list":["post-1141","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-dc-circuit-court-of-appeals","tag-judge-frederick-scullin","tag-wrenn-v-dc"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1141","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1141"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1141\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10556,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1141\/revisions\/10556"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1141"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1141"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1141"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}