Sam Heldman has a precis of a Supreme Court gun case about to be argued. Speaking as a non-lawyer, and someone with no particular stake in the outcome, it doesn’t even seem a close call to me; never reviewing an application is obviously tantamount to denying it, and if a denial is subject to judicial review, then …
Anyone have an idea about why the Supremes took it? Is it just that the thought of giving gun rights back to an ex-felon just seems too scary?
Sam answers my question here. Apparently I was right that this isn’t a close case, but completely wrong about which side it wasn’t a close case for. Precedent says that an appropriations rider barring the expenditure of funds to implement a statutory right amounts to a temporary repealer of the right itself.
I’m sure someone has noticed this before, but law is weird.