By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: the U.S. Supreme Court is on summer recess. US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: supplemental briefing has been ordered in Garland v. Range. Case No. 28-2835: on July 15, Judge Aileen Cannon granted Trump’s motion to dismiss the case, that charged him with unlawfully retaining presidential documents.
SCOTUS
According to Robert Leider’s article in The Reload, an administrative law case just decided by SCOTUS may help gun owners who are in trouble with the Transportation Security Administration. More than 6700 people who had found themselves breaking federal law by inadvertently leaving a firearm in their luggage last year alone may benefit from SEC v. Jarkesy. In that decision, SCOTUS ruled that before an agency can fine an individual, they must bring a proceeding in federal court and before a jury. Whether this speculation comes to fruition remains to be seen.
Circuit Court
Delaware: US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit :
Garland v. Range, Case No. 28-2835: On July 12, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ordered a supplemental briefing. That means that they are going to revisit this case quickly. Attorney Mark Smith @fourboxesdiner believes that the Third Circuit will reaffirm its ruling, and then Garland will have to re-seek certiorari with SCOTUS.
Background: Brian David Range, over 25 years ago, pled guilty to making a false statement to obtain food stamps, which was a misdemeanor offense but punishable by up to five years in prison. That makes him a prohibited person under federal law 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g). Range filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to restore his Second Amendment rights.
On Aug. 20, 2021, Judge E. K. Pratter denied his motion. He then appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. During the consideration by the Court of Appeals, the NYSRPA v. Bruen case was decided. Thus, the Court ordered briefs to be submitted concerning Bruen’s impact on this case. On November 15, 2022, a three-judge panel affirmed the decision of the District Court. That decision was then appealed to an en banc panel. The case was argued on February 15, 2023. In a 5-2 decision, the en banc panels reversed the three-judge panel and wrote: “We agree with Range that, despite his false statement conviction, he remains among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. And because the Government did not carry its burden of showing that our Nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation support disarming Range, we will reverse and remand.”
Attorney General Merrick Garland then appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which on July 2, 2024: “Petition for certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit for further consideration in light of United States v. Rahimi on July 2, 2024.”
District Court
United States v. Donald J. Trump: Case # 23-80101-CR-CANNON: On July 15, 2024, Judge Aileen Cannon granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss based on Appointments Clause Violation.
Judge Cannon wrote: “The Appointments Clause is a critical constitutional restriction stemming from the separation of powers, and it gives to Congress a considered role in determining the propriety of vesting appointment power for inferior officers. The Special Counsel’s position effectively usurps that important legislative authority, transferring it to a Head of Department, and in the process threatening the structural liberty inherent in the separation of powers. If the political branches wish to grant the Attorney General power to appoint Special Counsel Smith to investigate and prosecute this action with the full powers of a United States Attorney, there is a valid means by which to do so. He can be appointed and confirmed through the default method prescribed in the Appointments Clause, as Congress has directed for United States Attorneys throughout American history, see 28 U.S.C. § 541, or Congress can authorize his appointment through enactment of positive statutory law consistent with the Appointments Clause.”
Judge Cannon further ruled that the: “prosecution of this action breaches two structural cornerstones of our constitutional scheme—the role of Congress in the appointment of constitutional officers, and the role of Congress in authorizing expenditures by law.”
Thus the documents case against former President Trump has been dismissed. The press has alleged that Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurrence in the Trump v. United States case recently decided by SCOTUS in favor of Trump paid specific attention to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment and motivated Judge Cannon’s decision. In that case, Thomas wrote: “If Congress has not reached a consensus that a particular office should exist, the Executive lacks the power to unilaterally create and then fill that office.”
