A new Supreme Court term means another gun case. Meanwhile, gun deaths continue.

Also: A new paid subscriber weekend feature: Closing my tabs.

We’re a month out from the start of the new U.S. Supreme Court term.

And though the court hasn’t been quiet this summer, the shadow-docket decisions that we’ve seen were more a reminder of the stakes when it comes to the court than high-stakes decisions themselves.

A month from Sunday, though, the justices will hold oral arguments in their first major case of the new term: a challenge to the Biden administration’s “ghost gun” rule.

The arguments come as America’s approach to guns, gun regulation, and the Second Amendment continues to be front and center in our lives and in the courts.

Another school shooting. In Georgia on September 4. Two more dead children. Two more dead teachers.

Two days later, a federal appeals court kept blocked some parts of California and Hawaii’s efforts to restrict where guns are allowed, issuing a mixed decision in the cases. It was another decision addressing so-called “sensitive place” restrictions.

Among the areas the three-Democratic-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their challenge to California’s law: hospitals.

“Defendant has not introduced any evidence of a historical ban on firearms in medical facilities of any type,” Judge Susan Graber, a Clinton appointee, wrote for the panel, which also included Judges Mary Schroeder, a Carter appointee, and Jennifer Sung, a Biden appointee.

Yes, because of the limits the Supreme Court has placed on firearm restrictions, even a panel of three Democratic appointees — incidentally, all women — held that California can’t ban guns from hospitals.

A few days before the Georgia school shooting, meanwhile, a district court in Illinois blocked that state’s effort to bar guns from public transit. Here’s how U.S. District Judge Iain Johnston, a Trump appointee, summed it up:

After an exhaustive review of the parties’ filings and the historical record, as required by Supreme Court precedent, the Court finds that Defendants failed to meet their burden to show an American tradition of firearm regulation at the time of the Founding that would allow Illinois to prohibit Plaintiffs—who hold concealed-carry permits—from carrying concealed handguns for self-defense onto the CTA and Metra.

Guns in hospitals and on the subways.

What could go wrong?

Oh. We know. People will die.

---

Closing my tabs

As a part of my weekend publishing, I’m going to add a new feature for paid subscribers. There’s always too much going on, but I know that many of you are interested in what I’m reading and watching — even if it doesn’t make it into a full post.

So, each weekend, I’ll be giving paid subscribers a little peek into what else I’ve been watching during the week with a quick list that you’ll be able to dig into as much or little as you want!

Also, while I took a little break from some features over the summer, The Law Dork Nine and Law Dork Video will both be back this month!

So, with that, here are the tabs I’m closing this Sunday: