Four decisions today.
NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL.
THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a concurring opinion. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined. BARRETT, J., filed a concurring opinion. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and KAGAN, JJ., joined.
Held: New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense. Pp. 8–63.
Complete Second Amendment victory here.
VEGA v. TEKOH
ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. KAGAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BREYER and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined.
Held: A violation of the Miranda rules does not provide a basis for a §1983 claim. Pp. 4–16.
It will be interesting to see how this shakes out in the long run, as officers don’t have to fear a Section 1983 claim for violations of Miranda.
NANCE v. WARD, COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.
KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. BARRETT, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, ALITO, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined.
Held: Section 1983 remains an appropriate vehicle for a prisoner’s method-of-execution claim where, as here, the prisoner proposes an alternative method not authorized by the State’s death-penalty statute.
This will make it somewhat easier for prisoners to challenge their method of execution.
BERGER ET AL. v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP ET AL.
GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, BREYER, ALITO, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Held: North Carolina’s legislative leaders are entitled to intervene in this litigation. Pp. 8–19.
Republican leaders in the North Carolina legislature may intervene in a Federal lawsuit to defend the State’s Voter ID laws.
Four decisions today, nine cases left.
The Court will be back tomorrow and Monday and hopefully they will finish on Monday.