New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. New York

In the District Court, petitioners challenged a New York City rule regarding the transport of firearms. Petitioners claimed that the rule violated the Second Amendment. Petitioners sought declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the rule insofar as the rule prevented their transport of firearms to a second home or shooting range outside of the city. The District Court and the Court of Appeals rejected petitioners’ claim. See 883 F. 3d 45 (CA2 2018). We granted certiorari. 586 U. S. ___ (2019). After we granted certiorari, the State of New York amended its firearm licensing statute, and the City amended the rule so that petitioners may now transport firearms to a second home or shooting range outside of the city, which is the precise relief that petitioners requested in the prayer for relief in their complaint. App. 48. Petitioners’ claim for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the City’s old rule is therefore moot. Petitioners now argue, however, that the new rule may still infringe their rights. In particular, petitioners claim that they may not be allowed to stop for coffee, gas, food, or restroom breaks on the way to their second homes or shooting ranges outside of the city. The City responds that those routine stops are entirely permissible under the new rule. We do not here decide that dispute about the new rule; as we stated in Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U. S. 472, 482–483 (1990): “Our ordinary practice in disposing of a case that has become moot on appeal is to vacate the judgment with directions to dismiss. See, e.g., Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U. S., at 204; United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36, 39–40 (1950). However, in instances where the mootness is attributable to a change in the legal framework governing the case, and where the plaintiff may have some residual claim under the new framework that was understandably not asserted previously, our practice is to vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings in which the parties may, if necessary, amend their pleadings or develop the record more fully. See Diffenderfer v. Central Baptist Church of Miami, Inc., 404 U. S. 412, 415 (1972).” Petitioners also argue that, even though they have not previously asked for damages with respect to the City’s old rule, they still could do so in this lawsuit. Petitioners did not seek damages in their complaint; indeed, the possibility of a damages claim was not raised until well into the litigation in this Court. The City argues that it is too late for petitioners to now add a claim for damages. On remand, the Court of Appeals and the District Court may consider whether petitioners may still add a claim for damages in this lawsuit with respect to New York City’s old rule. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for such proceedings as are appropriate.

oldplayer :" “Roberts is a problem,” is right! You just cannot trust some of these black robed knuckleheads at all.
That Obamacare tax that wasn’t a tax travesty shines a spotlight on his empty soul."

Since the OBunger administration , and it's lock step DOJ and intelligence community were spying on the Trump pre-election,as well as post-election,
one has to wonder if they didn't also spy on selected members of the Supreme Court for the purpose of intimidation and coercion.
They weren't exactly known for following the law, much less Constitutional law, in regards to electronic surveillance of government officials.
There are certain issues in Robert's background that didn't see light until after his confirmation.

The thing I hate most about the FakeNews is that the cockroaches get away when the lights come on.

Let's shine some light on these vermin.

February 4, 2015:

cockroach Robert W. Sweet [Southern District of New York: D-PeanutBoy "judge"] was the scoffing POS that ruled against the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association in the first place.

Said cockroach met his maker in 2019, and is residing comfortably where he'll never get cold.

February 23, 2018:

3 more cockroaches from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals went through their lying gyrations and once again ruled 3-0 against the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association.

cockroaches from the three-"judge" panel:

Gerard Lynch [twofer - ClownBammy and Rapin Bill "judge"]

Democrat politician [1986-88] Rosemary S. Pooler [Rapin Bill "judge"]

Susan L. Carney-"Barker" [ClownBammy "judge"] - confirmed 71-28, so she is probably a totally partisan Democrat POS. Married to "jernalist" Lincoln W. Caplan, II who wrote the hypocritical elite navel-gazing piece “Should Facebook and Twitter Be Regulated Under the First Amendment?”, about why President Trump can't block people on Twitter, but it's OK to censor opponents of the Left.

After the two kangaroo courts had their little red-rubber-nosed clown shows, New York had to scramble to to change their garbage anti-gun laws so as to moot the case before the Supremes got hold of it.

Justice Alito noted their antics in his dissenting opinion:

In the District Court and the Court of Appeals, the City vigorously and successfully defended the constitutionality of its ordinance, and the law was upheld based on what we are told is the framework for reviewing Second Amendment claims that has been uniformly adopted by the Courts of Appeals.

One might have thought that the City, having convinced the lower courts that its law was consistent with Heller, would have been willing to defend its victory in this Court.

But once we granted certiorari, both the City and the State of New York sprang into action to prevent us from deciding this case.

Although the City had previously insisted that its ordinance served important public safety purposes, our grant of review apparently led to an epiphany of sorts, and the City quickly changed its ordinance.

And for good measure the State enacted a law making the old New York City ordinance illegal.

Thereafter, the City and amici supporting its position strove to have this case thrown out without briefing or argument. The City moved for dismissal “as soon as is reasonably practicable” on the ground that it had “no legal reason to file a brief.”...

===================

Just another day in the double-standard world of the Democrats and the Left.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.