Supreme Court

[walangkatapat]

There is some thing skewing the USAToday poll. If 96% agree that gun ownership is an individual right. Then, the 4 % that do not agree live in California…

Or the reporting of how CA, and the rest of the country feels, has been skewed all along.

Ouch ! you guys are killing me here Just remember that CA ranks #1 in USPSA members.

Is that Limited 10 members?

[ima45dv8]

2nd warning.

[reneet]

More news

Wall Street Journal

Well, I'm not pay $80 to read the rest of it, but the first paragraph sounds good.

Mike Cox Article - Second Amendment Showdown

[GentlemanJim]

Thanks Reneet!!!!

That article made my day

Jim

[Carlos]

Hope this thread stays open.

Alan, our A8 director elect, pointed out to me an interesting fact about one of the better sources of discussion on this case: scotusblog.com. That blog is actually hosted by Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP. That firm is assisting D.C. in this case. BUT, the blog (in my view anyway) seems to have relatively balanced content for people on both sides of the debate.

I located part of an exchange on the SCOTUSblog.com that I thought might help explain both sides of the controvery (I left in the credit to those who posted over there):

“In drafting the Constitutional Second Amendment the Founding Fathers had no idea about today’s modern automatic…weapons” : by Kenneth John Bemis on October 5, 2007 @ 2:05 pm.

RESPONSE (from scotusblog participant) "The same argument could apply as well to the First Amendment with the unseen developments of film, video, pornography, and the Internet. If technological advancements can render a “fundamental right” obsolete, then just what is the real issue here? Rights or technology? Or is clouding the rights issue with a technology argument an honest strategy regarding “rights”?

I think not. This ploy has a whiff of “separate but equal” to it. At this time in our history the Second Amendment issue is not about maximum technology, but about the minimum standards of the fundamental right of personal and national defense. Or “Minimum Code” in the parlance of architecture.

Just what is the minimum “arm” (weapon) that a person can “bear” (carry) and not infringe upon the rights of others to be able to “bear” similar “arms”? The “nuclear weapons” argument is a red herring and an emotional appeal to the ignorant. The issue before the court is both one of intent and degree.

Is the Second Amendment an individual right, as are all other rights, enumerated or not, in the Bill of Rights? If it is then, a fundamental right, what are the “minimums”? Archaic or modern. If “archaic” then is this a form of infringement? Would a return to the printing press be constitutional? If “modern” to the point of fully automatic weapons, is this beyond “original intent”?

It is time for the Supreme Court to define the 2nd. Amendment as an individual right without the Orwellian, “collective rights” oxymoron, and to decide upon the “minimums”. <edit due to inaccurate statements RE: firearms types & capabilities> These are the minimums, not the maximums, for those who’s right to “keep and bear arms” should be protected. Beyond that, there is room for the addition or proscription of certain equipment in the learned discussions of Congress or state legislatures. America is too important to consider any less.

Comment by Charles Norris — October 6, 2007 @ 1:05 pm

(no idea if this is our favorite Karate hero Chuck Norris - though somehow I doubt it).

d.

[Armando Q]

I apologize for my choice of words. I did not try to take a crack at CA. I just meant to point out that 96% seems rather high. If the 4% are making the rules for the rest of us then, they must concentrated somehow.

[Carlos]

I have stated above that Justice Kennedy, in my view, is key to the outcome of this case. That being said, I ran accross the following opinion re: how Kennedy may rule (note: this is just one interpretation; I am sure others may disagree w/ this person).

(by Orin Kerr on Volokh.com)

"Justice Kennedy and the Second Amendment: What is Justice Kennedy likely to do in the Second Amendment case the Court has granted?

As a general rule, Justice Kennedy tends to construe the Bill of Rights so its protections apply broadly but often yield to competing interests. If the question is whether a constitutional protection applies in an abstract sense to a new set of facts, Justice Kennedy is often inclined to answer that question in the affirmative. On the other hand, Kennedy often finds that the right gives way to competing governmenet interests such as law enforcement needs, security, finality, etc. (These are obviously enormous oversimplifications, but I think it's a pretty good first cut.)

What does that mean for the Second Amendment case? Well, I looked into my SCOTUS 330CLe Model Crystal Ball (patent pending, with optional GPS system), and it's predicting that Justice Kennedy will conclude that the Second Amendment does in fact create an individual right. It also tells me that Kennedy will endorse a relatively deferential standard of review that will end up allowing a great deal of gun regulation."

Comment: not sure I agree with the "great deal of gun regulation" part. Rather, I predict that the Supreme Court will allow restrictions on the ownership of guns that do not go so far as to make gun ownership (including handgun ownership) impossible.

What might such restrictions include?

-Brady law (NICS check permissible)

-NFA (though it might force some states to allow NFA firearms where they are currently prohibited)

-registration such as it is in New York and Illinois (among others).

-phohibitions based on felony convictions (of course) and possibly the Violence Against Women Act prohibitions concerning ex parte (ie your appearance is court is not required to issue) restraining orders

But, the out right ban in D.C. would disappear and the complete ban in Morton Grove Ill and a few other places would be subject to challenge.

Also made impossible would be provisions like the idea of a $1000 per bullet "tax" on ammunition (constitutes a de-facto ban) and other schemes to accomplish the same effect as a ban.

But, this is all speculation so far. The oral arguments may shed some light on which way they may go (though often the arguments tell us little).

[dajarrel]

USA Today has a one day poll running. It ask, "Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?"

Go here to cast your opinion.

USA Today 2nd Amendment Vote

Mods, I don't think this post is out of line, but if it is, please do not hesitate to pull it.

dj

Edited November 27, 2007 by dajarrel

[JThompson]

USA Today has a one day poll running. It ask, "Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?"

Go here to cast your opinion.

USA Today 2nd Amendment Vote

Mods, I don't think this post is out of line, but if it is, please do not hesitate to pull it.

dj

I posted that on the previous page.

[JThompson]

I have stated above that Justice Kennedy, in my view, is key to the outcome of this case. That being said, I ran accross the following opinion re: how Kennedy may rule (note: this is just one interpretation; I am sure others may disagree w/ this person).

(by Orin Kerr on Volokh.com)

"Justice Kennedy and the Second Amendment: What is Justice Kennedy likely to do in the Second Amendment case the Court has granted?

As a general rule, Justice Kennedy tends to construe the Bill of Rights so its protections apply broadly but often yield to competing interests. If the question is whether a constitutional protection applies in an abstract sense to a new set of facts, Justice Kennedy is often inclined to answer that question in the affirmative. On the other hand, Kennedy often finds that the right gives way to competing governmenet interests such as law enforcement needs, security, finality, etc. (These are obviously enormous oversimplifications, but I think it's a pretty good first cut.)

What does that mean for the Second Amendment case? Well, I looked into my SCOTUS 330CLe Model Crystal Ball (patent pending, with optional GPS system), and it's predicting that Justice Kennedy will conclude that the Second Amendment does in fact create an individual right. It also tells me that Kennedy will endorse a relatively deferential standard of review that will end up allowing a great deal of gun regulation."

Comment: not sure I agree with the "great deal of gun regulation" part. Rather, I predict that the Supreme Court will allow restrictions on the ownership of guns that do not go so far as to make gun ownership (including handgun ownership) impossible.

What might such restrictions include?

-Brady law (NICS check permissible)

-NFA (though it might force some states to allow NFA firearms where they are currently prohibited)

-registration such as it is in New York and Illinois (among others).

-phohibitions based on felony convictions (of course) and possibly the Violence Against Women Act prohibitions concerning ex parte (ie your appearance is court is not required to issue) restraining orders

But, the out right ban in D.C. would disappear and the complete ban in Morton Grove Ill and a few other places would be subject to challenge.

Also made impossible would be provisions like the idea of a $1000 per bullet "tax" on ammunition (constitutes a de-facto ban) and other schemes to accomplish the same effect as a ban.

But, this is all speculation so far. The oral arguments may shed some light on which way they may go (though often the arguments tell us little).

One correction or maybe an elaboration to the Illinois law. Some cities have "registration" laws, but the state does not. Rather they have a FOID card which one must obtain from the State Police in order to buy guns, ammo, or keep one in the home. There is no registration state wide... only in local municipalities, of which I live in one. I chose not to buy local and do not have to register the gun other than what everyone does when transferring a firearm.

Edited November 27, 2007 by JThompson

[dajarrel]

USA Today has a one day poll running. It ask, "Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?"

Go here to cast your opinion.

USA Today 2nd Amendment Vote

Mods, I don't think this post is out of line, but if it is, please do not hesitate to pull it.

dj

I posted that on the previous page.

mea culpa

dj

[Matthew_Mink]

Actually, the correct answer to the survey above is no. The Constitution does not grant us any rights whatsoever. If the Constitution did not exist we would still have the same basic rights. Our rights were given to us by our Creator, the Constitution merely enumerates them.

[tightloop]

Actually, the correct answer to the survey above is no. The Constitution does not grant us any rights whatsoever. If the Constitution did not exist we would still have the same basic rights. Our rights were given to us by our Creator, the Constitution merely enumerates them.

do any of your Liberal friends accept that as gospel truth?

[dajarrel]

Actually, the correct answer to the survey above is no. The Constitution does not grant us any rights whatsoever. If the Constitution did not exist we would still have the same basic rights. Our rights were given to us by our Creator, the Constitution merely enumerates them.

I don't disagree with the concept you put forth, but in the context of the ongoing case to be heard by the Supreme Court, the Constitution and it's Amendments is the document that guarantees us the right to bear arms.

Not a Constitutional Scholar, but I saw one on C-Span one time.

dj

[dirty whiteboy]

Actually, the correct answer to the survey above is no. The Constitution does not grant us any rights whatsoever. If the Constitution did not exist we would still have the same basic rights. Our rights were given to us by our Creator, the Constitution merely enumerates them.

I don't disagree with the concept you put forth, but in the context of the ongoing case to be heard by the Supreme Court, the Constitution and it's Amendments is the document that guarantees us the right to bear arms.

The right existed before the government was formed.

"To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia."

DC Circut court of appeals 3/09/2007

[turbocomp38s]

My take on this issue is that the second amendment is one of our basic rights- which is under our constitution. Constitution is simply defined as the supreme law of the land. For the SC to take on this and decide to vote is not really a good idea. Nobody can rewrite these laws as this was founded by our forefathers.

[dirty whiteboy]

My take on this issue is that the second amendment is one of our basic rights- which is under our constitution. Constitution is simply defined as the supreme law of the land. For the SC to take on this and decide to vote is not really a good idea. Nobody can rewrite these laws as this was founded by our forefathers.

I agree.

In other words, the "Bill Of Rights" are limits placed upon the Government by the people.

[Genghis]

The best case scenario would be a broad ruling that each part of the 2nd Amendment means what it says. The worst case scenario would gut this right, entrusting it to the discretion of politicians and making it "negotiable." That means we'd all have to get up from the computer and start working on political campaigns, if we want to keep doing what we do.

If we win, the Court will have to come to the startling conclusion that the Founders meant "People" when they said "People." The "Collective Rights" argument is based on the opposite idea - that "People" meant "individuals" in the 1st Amendment, then changed to mean "states" in the 2nd, then reverted to mean "individuals" again in the 4th. The Founders could have said "The power of the states to maintain militias shall not be infringed" if they'd wanted to. They could have used the term "states" as they did in the 9th and 10th. These were not stupid men.

Commentators also note that since this case deals with D.C., the ruling won't necessarily be binding on the states. Most of the Bill of Rights became binding on the states only when we adopted the 14th Amendment. But "shall not be infringed" is different from "Congress shall make no law." By its terms, the 2nd Amendment seems to apply to anyone, including the federal government, states, and even individuals. So we don't need the 14th Amendment to apply this part of the Bill of Rights to the states.

The 2nd Amendment should be treated like the First - meaning that there are a few exceptions, but they should be strictly scrutinized, ESPECIALLY prior restraints of the right. In most cases, the government should be limited to punishing abuses of this right, rather than restricting it in advance.

Most people seem to assume the Court will end up with four justices voting in favor of freedom (Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito) and four against (Souter, Ginsberg, Stevens, and Breyer), with Kennedy breaking the tie. I'm not so sure.

I can't see Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer, or Stevens ever validating the 2nd Amendment, so the Antis start with four solid votes.

I don't think any of the others is 100% solid in favor of validating the 2nd Amendment. Thomas made some encouraging comments as an aside in one case (Printz):

"The Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government's authority. That Amendment provides: "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This Court has not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantive right safeguarded by the Second Amendment. If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to "keep and bear arms," a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that Amendment's protections. As the parties did not raise this argument, however, we need not consider it here. Perhaps, at some future date, this Court will have the opportunity to determine whether Justice Story was correct when he wrote that the right to bear arms "has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic." 3 J. Story, Commentaries º1890, p. 746 (1833). In the meantime, I join the Court's opinion striking down the challenged provisions of the Brady Act as inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment."

But in the Bean case he allowed a person's gun rights to be permanently taken away because of a felony conviction in Mexico for bringing 200 rounds of ammo into the country. http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:GNZTf...;cd=1&gl=us I have a hard time with taking away a fundamental right because of a felony conviction from a foreign country based on exercising what we recognize as a fundamental right. In other words, I think it's a travesty that Bean can't have a gun now because he got caught taking ammo into Mexico. Would Thomas have come to the same conclusion if Bean's conviction had been for giving a speech criticizing the Mexican government? The 2nd Amendment apparently wasn't argued much in that case, but a judge who believes in it would have a hard time ruling as Thomas did. I am cautiously optimistic that Thomas will come down on our side, but I don't think he's a sure thing.

Scalia is likely to be on our side, although he has made some troubling comments about respect for precedent. Personally, I don't think a bad decision in the past justifies a bad decision now. But in an abortion case (Casey) he said, ""It is difficult to maintain the illusion that we are interpreting a Constitution, rather than inventing one, when we amend its provisions so breezily." He also said in his book A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, "It would… be strange to find in the midst of a catalog of the rights of individuals a provision securing to the states the right to maintain a designated 'Militia.' Dispassionate scholarship suggests quite strongly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms meant just that. There is no need to deceive ourselves as to what the original Second Amendment said and meant." So hopefully Scalia is solidly on our side.

Alito should be on our side, but that's based on his attitude before his appointment to the Supremes. As everyone knows, this can change a person. He did write a dissent when he was on the 3rd Circuit, questioning whether Congress could ban machine guns based on its Commerce Clause Power. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/.../us_v_rybar.txt This wasn't a 2nd Amendment case, but at least he wanted to put some limits on Congress. I think Alito will probably be on our side.

I'd like to think Roberts would be on our side, but I don't think he has written or spoken extensively on the 2nd Amendment. He did comment during the confirmation process that "the Miller case side-stepped the issue" of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and said it's "still very much an open issue." But he said he favored the individual rights interpretation, and argued that there would have been no reason for the Court to discuss the type of gun in Miller if there was no individual right. His comments showed a great deal of knowledge about the issue, which is encouraging. http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/09/roberts_on_the.php I think Roberts will probably be on our side.

If I'm right about Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer, or Stevens, then for us to win we need all four conservatives plus Kennedy. I think he is a long shot, which makes me question why our side didn't wait for appointment of another conservative justice or so to bring this case. Because of Kennedy's concern for individual rights, he could conceivably could take our side. I hope he realizes that seeing the Constitution as a "living document" means it can be amended by 5 people, instead of by the process established for its amendment. Many commentators seem to think Kennedy will validate the 2nd Amendment but support a deferential standard of review that allows for a lot of gun control laws. If this is the end result, the exceptions could effectively erase the right, but that result is far better than a flat holding that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms.

This Court seems to lean toward narrow rulings, instead of broad ones. And the plaintiffs intentionally sought a narrow ruling. There is also a possibility of justices agreeing on some issues and disagreeing on others. So if the People lose this case, I doubt the police will be going around collecting guns the next day. We will have to shift our emphasis to state legislatures, and to electing congressmen and senators. If we win it, don't expect every gun control law to immediately disappear. The likely result of this ruling, regardless of how it comes out, will be a slow process of fighting over specific laws over a period of years.

[edited to correct stupid math error]

Edited November 28, 2007 by Genghis

[raz-0]

The more I read about people's opinions on this, the more I think we are going to wind up with a mess.

I see it possibly winding up with them basically saying that unless you are in a state militia, you don't have a right to bear arms. I actually think this is unlikely, mainly because the vote would largley go down party lines, and it would make the RKBA issue an even bigger issues in the presidential race, sicne gun ownership will be at the whim of our elected officials. I also think that this will be a bigger mess than most will want to create.

I see it very unlikely that we will get a ruling that will strongly state that the 2nd is a individual right and that regulation is tantamount to infringement.

I think odds are decent that they will come out and say it is an individual right, and that an outright ban on all guns and things tantamount to that without much hand wringing is going to have some decent precident to start a new case from scratch. I don't think that it will be strongly worded enough to prevent mcuh in the way of existing legilation. Also the odds of any new case based on this ruling getting back to the supreme court and being heard will be low. I think we will get to see the phrase "ordinary weapon" in the ruling too, and this will be the source of much legal shenanigans in the ensuing attempts to buil followup cases within a state.

I think the wording will allow all NFA rules to stand.

I don't think the wording, if in our favor, will be strong enough to challenge things like magazine capacity bans, and likely not strong enough to prevent very specific bans like the big fifty bans. I think it will give us nothing with regard to any bans by import regulations. I also think it won't prevent things like california's storage laws, or trigger lock laws unless they are worded so as to essentialy keep you form bearing arms within your own home in self defense, and probably as long as they don't prevent you from transporting them somewhere to use for something.

Things like an AWB, and saturday night special/junk gun bans will be in a weird but challengable area, and we might have a leg to stand on with regard to challenging federal regulation. State regulation is going to be harder to fight here. Likely it will come down to arguing over what is an "ordinary" weapon.

I think even a mildly pro RKBA ruling will have to basically say a ban as broad as "all handguns" would be very challengable. This should be extensible to all shotguns, or all semi-automatics. It'd probably even be arguable if they tried an "armor piercing ammo" law that effectively banned centerfire rifles by making ammo for them illegal. At least outside of the 9th circuit, which is the legal equivilent of a magic 8-ball with no sane answers most of the time.

Basically, I think we will get a ruling that says the 2nd is an individual right, and DCs current storage laws are an effective ban. However, I don't think it will do anything to tell us any kind of precident beyond that. THe ruling would essentially let DC turn aorund and enact CA style storage rules and some annoying transportation rules and have efectively the same situation and we'll just have to start the same process all over again. Essentially progress will be nil except for stating the 2nd is an individual right, and that prohibiting ownership and prohibiting any use is a violation of that right. Which really wouldn't change much form a legal standpoint unless you live someplace with an outright ban or damn near it.

My $0.02 which ain't worth all that much.

[Carlos]

More background:

LINK TO NY TIMES

or try:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/us/03bar...amp;oref=slogin

I would like to see this thread stay open. To that end, let's not bring up the past history of this case to the extent that there was once a conflict between Robert A. Levy (the Libertarian lawyer behind this case) and the NRA.

That conflict is now over. To quote from the article: "Both men [Levy and LaPierre] said the N.R.A. and Mr. Levy’s team were now on good terms." It serves no purpose to bring up the past.

Now, on with the discussion regarding our future & how the Justices may rule.

[Front Man]

Nice info Carlos.

I too want this thread to stay open!

FM

[XRe]

Between Carlos and Sean (Genghis), lots of good analysis. Glad my understanding of the make up of the court is at least close to correct, too....

[Carlos]

Genghis - good analysis! Looking forward to your take after the oral arguments.

Front Man - you are welcome.

I ran accross an article that will hopefully provide more background on Kennedy's jurisprudence. There's reason to be cautiously optimistic about Kennedy taking the high road and not ruling based on some public poll or an overly emotional (but yet flawed) amicus brief:

<snip> (by Edward Lazarus) "In effect, O'Connor's jurisprudential style reduced an awful lot of important questions to her own personal judgment, as well as her sense of the public's mood. Kennedy, by contrast, is endlessly struggling (albeit with mixed success) to subjugate his personal views to some larger principle, and he does so in a way that is largely independent of the vicissitudes of public opinion."

Here is the link: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20071206.html

On another note, D.C. Attorney General Linda Singer has resigned. Here is a link to the story:

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1207/481212.html

But as can be seen in the short blurb, Singer's resignation will not likely have a significant effect in the upcoming Heller case because D.C. has appointed special counsel Alan Morrison to argue the Heller case for D.C., and he will stay on. In addition, special counsel Peter Nickles appears to have upstaged Singer and he is now acting AG.

D.

Edited December 20, 2007 by Carlos

[Carlos]

Lawyer Preparing to Defend D.C. Handgun Ban Is Fired

LINK TO LOCAL NEWS WJLA STORY

Acting D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles has fired the city lawyer who had been preparing to defend the District's handgun ban.

The dismissal comes as the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments this year on whether the city's 31-year ban violates the Constitution. Alan Morrison helped write a 15,000-word brief that is scheduled to be filed with the high court on Friday. Morrison tells The Washington Post he has been asked to leave his post as special counsel by the end of this week.

Morrison had been hired by former Attorney General Linda Singer, who resigned two weeks ago. Singer cited frustration that Mayor Adrian Fenty had relied more heavily on Nickles, who had been his general counsel, to make key legal decisions.

Information from: The Washington Post,

http://www.washingtonpost.com"

End of quote.

Morrison's brief for D.C. must be filed by this Friday. He won't be around to argue it. This does not make D.C. look very well-prepared now does it?

I am not going to count my chickens just yet. But I was impressed by Morrison's credentials; I would think he would be a tough act for D.C. to follow. Will D.C.'s acting AG do a better job? Just last night on a local news program, one of their reps said something really ignorant to the effect of: "let me put this in human terms for you: last year X number of D.C. residents lost their lives to guns." He neglected to mention that the victims were legally dis-armed by the very district that failed to protect them. THAT sort of pure emotion-based argument will NOT fly before the Supreme Court. Let's hope they stick to such weak arguments.

[Carlos]

More on the story (from today's Washington Post):

""Acting D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles has fired the city lawyer who had been preparing to defend the District's longtime ban on handguns before the Supreme Court this spring, a move that some city officials fear could harm the case." The Post continues, "Alan B. Morrison, who has argued 20 cases before the high court, was asked to leave his post as special counsel by the end of this week. Morrison had been hired by then-Attorney General Linda Singer and put in charge of arguing the handgun case. Singer resigned two weeks ago. ... Nickles declined to elaborate on his decision, but Morrison suggested in an interview that he was fired as part of a feud between Nickles and Singer." The Post adds, "The case is one of the most important in the city's history, and the court's ruling could have a national impact, legal experts have said. The city appealed to the Supreme Court to maintain the handgun ban after a lower court overturned it in the spring. The high court agreed to hear the case, probably in March, which would mark the first time the Supreme Court has examined a Second Amendment case in nearly 70 years. ... Morrison had taken an active part, along with a team of lawyers from the city and two private firms, in writing a 15,000-word brief that is scheduled to be filed with the Supreme Court tomorrow. In recent weeks, Morrison led a practice run -- known as a moot court -- through the oral arguments he planned to make in the courtroom. During typical high court hearings, each side has 30 minutes to present its case while being peppered by questions from the justices. ... Nickles said yesterday that he will announce a replacement for Morrison in the next 10 days. He said the team of lawyers who had been working with Morrison -- including D.C. Solicitor General Todd Kim, Thomas C. Goldstein of Akin Gump and Walter E. Dellinger of O'Melveny & Myers -- would remain on the case. Goldstein has argued 17 Supreme Court cases, and Dellinger was acting U.S. solicitor general during the high court's 1996-97 term."

Commentary: With D.C.'s case now in the hands of D.C. Solicitor General Todd Kim, Thomas C. Goldstein of Akin Gump and Walter E. Dellinger of O'Melveny & Myers, this will be a tough fight, no doubt.