Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

James Rothery, et al. v. Lou Blanas, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 09-16852 · judgment November 8, 2017


Certiorari denied · November 5, 2018
Pre-decision estimate: 3% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Question presented

Under California law, possessing a loaded handgun outside the home is generally prohibited, but concealed carry is permissible after obtaining a license to do so. There are no uniform state standards for the issuance of a permit; leaving the decision entirely within the discretion of the locally elected sheriff. The discretionary and arbitrary application process itself creates perverse incentives for the approval or denial of an application. Most individuals in many California counties, including Sacramento County, cannot obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon unless the individual is a friend or campaign contributor to the local county sheriff. Honorably retired California peace officers are exempted from this restraint as they are automatically granted a lifetime right to carry concealed weapons, regardless of need or merit. The two questions presented are:

  1. Does California’s general prohibition to carry a loaded handgun outside the home, coupled with an arbitrary and capricious licensing scheme for citizens who wish to carry a concealed weapon, violate Californians’ fundamental right to keep and bear arms for self-defense guaranteed by the Second Amendment?

  2. Does California’s grant of a lifetime right to honorably retired California peace officers to carry a concealed weapon, coupled with a grant of unbridled discretion to each elected Sheriff whereby concealed weapon permits are issued on a quid pro quo basis to political supporters, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when average citizens, including former military, are subjected to the capriciousness of the locally elected Sheriff?

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Gary W. Gorski

For respondent
John Andrej Lavra
Longyear, O'dea and Lavra, LLP

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences

Proceedings

  1. Nov 05 2018
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Oct 17 2018
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/2/2018.
  3. Oct 09 2018
    Reply of petitioners James Rothery, et al. filed.
  4. Oct 01 2018
    Brief of State Respondent in opposition filed.
  5. Oct 01 2018
    Brief of respondents County of Sacramento, et al. in opposition filed.
  6. Aug 31 2018
    Response Requested. (Due October 1, 2018)
  7. Aug 29 2018
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.
  8. Aug 14 2018
    Waiver of right of respondent Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California to respond filed.
  9. Aug 14 2018
    Waiver of right of respondents Lou Blanas, et al. to respond filed.
  10. Jul 26 2018
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 27, 2018)