I thought this was an interesting article explaining the issues in the case, Justice Kavanaugh’s probable legal opinion on the issue and possible outcome for the case:
The reality is that the voluntary cessation clause would not apply. Because while the law in New York State stipulates that the “same” regulations cannot be reinstated. It does not say a word about the intent of that law. Thus it is entirely feasible that NYC could pass even more draconian possession laws restricting firearms owners even more and then this process would have to start all over again.
Some additional insight into the SCOTUS and this case.
Wow, excellent article, MQuinn55! Thanks!
Let’s hope this goes in our favor
The court issued a per curiam decision on April 27, 2020, holding that the case was moot in light of the changed law. The Court ordered the prior rulings vacated and the case remanded to lower courts to consider “whether petitioners may still add a claim for damages in this lawsuit with respect to New York City’s old rule.” This is a challenged issue between the parties, and the Supreme Court noted, “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.”
While the decision was issued per curiam and thus meant to represent the collective decision of the court, reporters inferred the decision was based on a 6-3 vote based on the attached opinions. In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that the case was moot but wrote that he agreed with Justice Samuel Alito’s “concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald” and suggested that “The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.” The day of the decision, the Court added ten Second Amendment-based petitions for consideration.
In a lengthy dissent joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch in full and Justice Clarence Thomas in part, Justice Alito wrote, “This case is not moot. The City violated petitioners’ Second Amendment right, and we should so hold.” He argued that the Court should have evaluated the city’s laws in light of Heller and McDonald, and that by rendering the case moot, they have allowed the docket of the Supreme Court to be “manipulated”.
Referencing this case in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, in Justice Alito’s concurrence, he states that “after we agreed to review [the Second Circuit’s] decision, the city repealed the law and admitted that it did not actually have any beneficial effect on public safety.”