In a classic admiralty, multi-country, CivPro wonky fashion, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals just issued a decision analyzing the basic jurisdiction of the federal courts to enforce foreign judgments arising from admiralty cases.

The case is D'amico Dry Limited v. Priemera Maritime (Hellas) Ltd., et al. and the opinion can be found here.…

The Washington Post ran an exclusive article this week reporting that President Obama is about to expand the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument purportedly creating the world's largest marine sanctuary.

Per the article:  

Under the proposal, according to two independent analyses, the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument would be expanded from almost…

The City and County of Honolulu just filed a Petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in its defense of Honolulu’s concealed carriage of firearms laws.  The case is Baker v. Kealoha and the petition can be found here.  The Ninth Circuit’s panel’s memorandum opinion in the case can be found here.

Disclosure:  we represent amicus curiae Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in the district court and at the Ninth Circuit.

In Baker, the Ninth Circuit noted its published decision in the case of Peruta v. County of San Diego, and followed the holding finding that concealed carry license laws that require a showing of good cause impermissibly infringed on citizen’s Second Amendment rights. It overturned the preliminary injunction and remanded the case to the District Court for trial.

In the City’s Petition, it argues that Peruta contravenes the Supreme Court decision that started this national wave of gun rights litigation, District of Columbia v. Heller, and the presumptive lawfulness of concealed carry laws.  It then argues that rehearing of Baker, either by the panel or en banc, is appropriate because of several conflicting circuit court decisions from other courts. Finally, the City argued that Baker conflicts with the Ninth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Chovan which found that the ‘core’ of the Second Amendment was the right to carry a firearm in the home.  The City asserts that Baker’s holding makes firearm carriage outside the home the functional equivalent of inside the home and thus, conflicts with Chovan.

Stay tuned for further developments in this highly dynamic area of constitutional law.

Our earlier post on this case is here and here.

Panel Decision oral arguments can be heard at – Download 12-16258 (1).

The Plaintiff’s Opening Brief is: here.The City’s Answering Brief is:  here. The Brady Center’s amicus brief is:  here.