Supreme Court Shoots Down Major 2A Case! | NYSRPA v. NYC

Published on April 28, 2020
Duration: 10:14

The Supreme Court punted on NYSRPA v. NYC, a significant Second Amendment case, by ruling it moot due to New York City repealing its ordinance. This decision avoids addressing the core Second Amendment merits, potentially allowing states and cities to evade Supreme Court review by altering laws before a ruling. Justice Alito's dissent argues the case was not moot and that lower courts are misapplying Heller and McDonald.

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court ruled NYSRPA v. NYC moot, avoiding a decision on the Second Amendment merits. This occurred because New York City repealed the ordinance in question after the Court granted certiorari, potentially allowing states to evade future Supreme Court review by altering laws before a ruling.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Supreme Court Punts on 2A Case
  2. 00:05NYSRPA v. NYC Case Background
  3. 00:34NYC Ordinance Details
  4. 01:00Procedural Ruling: Mootness
  5. 01:13NYC Repeals Ordinance
  6. 02:26Why This is a Loss for 2A
  7. 03:04Kavanaugh's Concurrence
  8. 03:47Kavanaugh's Statement on Heller/McDonald
  9. 04:49Scary Implications: Avoiding SCOTUS
  10. 05:13California Case Examples
  11. 06:56Alito's Dissent
  12. 07:36Use of Heller and McDonald in Lower Courts
  13. 08:30Waiting for Next Case
  14. 09:22Broader Implications

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the outcome of NYSRPA v. NYC at the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court ruled NYSRPA v. NYC moot, meaning they did not decide the case on its Second Amendment merits. This was because New York City repealed the ordinance in question after the Court agreed to hear the case, making the legal dispute no longer live.

Why is the Supreme Court's decision in NYSRPA v. NYC considered a loss for Second Amendment rights?

This decision is seen as a loss because the Supreme Court avoided addressing the core Second Amendment issues. Furthermore, it may have opened a pathway for states and cities to evade Supreme Court review by repealing challenged laws before a ruling, creating a cycle of avoidance.

What did Justice Alito argue in his dissent regarding NYSRPA v. NYC?

Justice Alito argued that the case was not moot and that the Supreme Court should have addressed the merits. He believed the Court could have ruled on damages or attorney's fees, and he expressed concern that lower courts are misapplying Heller and McDonald.

How might states and cities use the NYSRPA v. NYC ruling to their advantage?

States and cities could potentially repeal or alter firearm laws that are challenged and heading to the Supreme Court. By doing so, they can argue the case is moot, forcing the Supreme Court to dismiss it without ruling on the constitutionality of the law, thus avoiding a definitive Second Amendment precedent.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from Armed Scholar

View all →