SCOTUS Refuses to Decide NYC Gun Rights Case

[buckengr]

I'm no expert on lawsuits, but I have a few questions for those who might know better. (Reasoned speculation is welcome; I'm just trying to understand the contours of the potential arguments.)


1. I assume that since no decision was rendered, the plaintiffs are unable to recoup legal fees for their troubles?

2. Could the plaintiffs have potentially avoided the case being mooted if they had sought some other type of relief or damages in addition to injunctive relief? Is there another type of relief that could potentially be sought against a city government at the same time, or would any other type of relief be predicated on the outcome of this first suit?

3. If the plaintiffs were able to show some sort of actual, measurable harm caused by the city's policy, would that open the door to suing for another form of relief (simultaneously)?

4. If another type of relief could have been sought, would that have potentially made any difference w.r.t. allowing the case to continue and to be ruled upon at SCOTUS level, if the city still changed the underlying law?

(e.g. If compensatory damages were also sought, but the city still changed the law as they did, could the suit still have potentially resulted in a finding that would have had a side-effect of forcing lower courts to apply strict scrutiny, or would the question of injunctive relief being moot exclude this as a potential outcome?)


I guess I'm curious about whether a stronger plaintiff that could prove actual harm could have enabled this case to continue and potentially establish good case law, regardless of whether the state changes the underlying statute in contest.


Thanks in advance if anyone has any desire to take a stab at these.

[wew3]

The Democrats response:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/moot-po...le_email_share

"The NRA knows Americans want to protect themselves from grimly routine and senseless gun violence. But rather than turn to Congress, where its agenda is dead on arrival, the NRA engineers cases like N.Y. State Rifle and stocks the federal judiciary with judges receptive to its arguments."

I responded:

"Same thing can be said about abortion. Some how it's ok for the courts to decide that issue."

Bill