![]() ![]() As applied in that broad way, the rule is a strong incentive for plaintiffs to shop for a favorable judge and have all their cases heard before her.īut the opinion itself is even more bizzare than the rule that landed the case in this courtroom. And, on the merits, it does not seem that anything ties the series of cases before Judge Benitez together other than the fact that they raise Second Amendment challenges to state laws. As the San Diego Union-Tribune reports, the district’s rule (unlike those in other federal districts, such as the one covering Los Angeles) does not even allow an opposing party to object that the cases don’t satisfy the rule. ![]() The rule is supposed to allow disposition of similar issues arising between parties to be adjudicated efficiently by a single judge, not to allow a plaintiff to funnel all of its constitutional challenges to the same judge. It is due to a peculiar “related cases” rule in the Southern District of California. (Here’s my two– part summary of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion upholding his ruling on California’s large-capacity magazine ban.) The reason Judge Benitez has had so many of these challenges before him is important and does not get enough attention. One oddity is that Judge Benitez has also authored similar decisions striking down other California regulations under the Second Amendment. In today’s post, I’ll describe the doctrinal and theoretical moves the opinion makes, and tomorrow’s post will provide further analysis and critical engagement. Benitez of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, struck down California’s assault weapons ban as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Bonta and California’s Assault Weapons Ban By Jake Charles on JCategories: Dangerous and Unusual Weapons, Lawsuits, Second Amendment ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |