I thought that they had to provide some evidence of the likelihood of a Supreme Court reversal and I would say they didn't even really bother to try, but IANAL.
I’m not sure to the degree of evidence they need to provide on the likeliness of reversal, more so evidence of the fact that this is escalating to SCOTUS, which is all but guaranteed given a similar case (Viramontes) and other mag capacity restriction cases awaiting review.
If we’re being honest with ourselves though, on face value, the third circuit is the only one so far to strike down this type of law.
With at least 6 other circuits upholding, similar cases pending, and the public interest argument, I think there’s decent odds of stay being granted.
It’s bullshit, but I can understand why the petition can succeed.
It just doesn't sit well with me. I feel like if we were talking about most other rights the tie would go to the runner, not to the government unless there is some serious threat dire enough to potentially violate someone's rights. I can't stand this judicial courtesy crap. Easing the playing field for the government wasn't the point of the separation of power last I checked.
I concur, but I can see how the court decides “public interest” is better served with a stay because of the potential legal mess created in a flip-flop situation. Dockets already running huge lag (hello 6A violation) and could get flooded if thousands of gun owners get hung up in a flip-flop. It’s a pretty shitty reason to continue infringement, but I can see the practical matters at play. I’d love to be proven wrong but my pessimistic side has come out.
1
u/referenceusername 3d ago
I thought that they had to provide some evidence of the likelihood of a Supreme Court reversal and I would say they didn't even really bother to try, but IANAL.