New York has a similar ban. Possibly other states. Could it be the Supreme Court is waiting for the case against the state law they can uphold. In other words, if say CT’s law is more restrictive than New York, they’ll wait for the case against New York’s law if it’s easier to uphold?
Just speculation.
As long as we're into speculating, I'll throw mine out there. I think the 8 remaining justices are waiting to be made whole with a ninth justice so they won't have any 4-4 decisions. There's a large difference between not taking a case and an actual decision with a tie vote. In the meantime, they've chosen to just work the cases where a true decision can be made while the politicians work on getting that 9th justice.
They don’t reveal how they select cases however, they rarely take on two cases of similar, general, subject matter within a few years of each other.
No, they decline to hear it because to hear it would be to have to judg on the matter... and the real truth is that the court is horribly political and doesn't really care about the law/jurisprudence. A perfect example is the Proposition 8 case, where the CA state court certified that the people of the state were indeed harmed by the state's non-action on the matter, and which the USSC refused to hear saying that the people of the State had no standing.
Likewise, they will not rule on gun-bans because (a) to do so would alter the political landscape, one way or another; (b) because letting things stand as-is means that they can use Congress's hand-wringing trick about executive-branch overreach; and, (c) because they do not honor the Constitution.
With this court, I don’t believe so.