General Legal Matters

Subscribe to General Legal Matters via RSS

Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case.  The transcript of that argument is available here.

Case Background

The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing a case that has the potential to re-write over 100 years of 14th Amendment jurisprudence.  The case is McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521 (cert granted Sept. 30, 2009).

The Fourteenth Amendment states: 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Question Presented

The Question Presented is:  Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated as against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities or Due Process Clauses.

My resource page with briefs, opinions below and media is here.  

Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in McDonald v. City of Chicago, a case asking whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause or the Due Process Clause makes the Second Amendment applicable to the states and local governments. It is shaping up to be one of the most important cases of the court’s term and it could usher in a new era in constitutional jurisprudence.

I am moderating a 90 minute teleconference sponsored by the American Bar Association’s State and Local Government Section today (ABA flyer is here).

Quick summary:

Case Background

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that has the potential to re-write over 100 years of 14th Amendment jurisprudence.  The case is McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521 (cert granted Sept. 30, 2009).

The Fourteenth Amendment states: 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Question Presented

The Question Presented is:  Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated as against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities or Due Process Clauses.

My resource page with briefs, opinions below and media is here.  

Please excuse my divergence from this blog's typical fare, but this is an important Constitutional case which turns on the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Most will consider this a gun rights case, and it is, but the legal theory behind why it is a gun rights case is more far reaching than that.

I have begun gathering materials related to the McDonald v. Chicago case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.  Briefs, lower court decisions and a sampling from the blogosphere is included. My resource page is here.

The Question Presented is:

Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated as against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities or Due Process Clauses.

Stay tuned.

 

Please excuse the off-topic blog post, but I am a lawyer and this case needs to be discussed.

The Supreme Court is hearing the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago which most commentators will consider a gun rights case.  Specifically, whether individuals have a Constitutional right to bear arms that cannot be infringed upon by the states.  The petitioner’s opening brief is here.  The Seventh Circuit’s decision is here.

This case stands for much more than gun rights, but, as the brief points out, is truly about the meaning of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and the import of the Privileges or Immunities clause.  The clause provides:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States ….

The question is to what extent do the Bill of Rights apply to the states?  Or conversely, to what extent is state regulatory power checked by the Bill of Rights?

After the Civil War and the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, the Supreme Court decided that the Privileges or Immunities Clause did not limit state conduct that infringed on rights set forth in the Bill of Rights.  These cases started with the Slaughterhouse Cases.

As such, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment became the mechanism by which the Bill of Rights was made applicable to the states.  This continues to this day with the Privileges or Immunities clause being quaint text and the stuff of constitutional scholars.

Until now.  The petitioner in McDonald seeks to overturn Slaughterhouse and recognize that the federal Bill of Rights is applicable to the several States by operation of the Privileges or Immunities clause.

One to watch.