Teen suing over FOID Card denial seeks summary judgment.

[Levant]

If she turns 21 before this is settled I will be surprised if the state does not claim she has no standing.

[JimDandy]

She can use the Roe cases to argue no one with standing can get justice in the time frame the courts allow, and maintain her suit if the judge agrees, which I have to think would be likely eventually.

How do you think an abortion case got to the Supreme Court some time after the child turned 5 or so?

[KyJim]

I'm no legal beagle, but isn't asking for a summary judgment the basic "I believe I'm right, its obvious.." and asking the judge to agree, or not?

And, if the judge rules against, can suit still be brought? And, if suit can be brought, if she turns 21 before it is resolved (that part of the law no longer applies to her) will it get tossed?

The magic language under the federal rules and many (most?) state rules for summary judgment is that "there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." In other words, there doesn't have to be evidence taken because everyone agrees what the controlling facts are and it is simply a question of applying the law.

If the judge rules against the motion, the judge can also issue a summary judgment against the moving party. The judge may also deny the motion because there are material factual issues that have to be resolved either through additional discovery or at a trial.

The suit might or might not continue if the plaintiff turns 21 before it is resolved. It might become "moot." There is usually an exception for situations where the event is "capable of repetition, yet evading review." The Roe v. Wade case someone else mentioned is a classic example. The Supreme Court held that it was unlikely that legal proceedings could be finished within the 9 months a woman was pregnant (probably less than 9 months because most women are at least two months along before they find out they are pregnant). The Court used the magic language I noted and said they would review the case.

In this particular case, there's a three year time period to litigate. In addition, once the plaintiff turns 21, the event (being under age 21) cannot happen again to this plaintiff. In Roe v. Wade, the same woman could get pregnant again. I don't know know if the suit would become moot or not when the plaintiff turns 21, but those are the issues that would have to be resolved.

[JimDandy]

In Roe v. Wade, the same woman could get pregnant again

She could not become pregnant with THAT pregnancy again. The court cannot assume she would become pregnant again, or even that she would want to terminate any successive pregnancy.

[KyJim]

She could not become pregnant with THAT pregnancy again. The court cannot assume she would become pregnant again, or even that she would want to terminate any successive pregnancy.

No, but I have seen at least one case where the court said that the particular plaintiff could not find himself in that position again so it did not meet the exception for mootness; the fact it could happen to someone else was not enough. In Roe, it was at least possible for the event to reoccur for that particular plaintiff. Here is what the Supreme Court said about standing/mootness regarding Plaintiff Roe:

But when, as here, pregnancy is a significant fact in the litigation, the normal 266-day human gestation period is so short that the pregnancy will come to term before the usual appellate process is complete. If that termination makes a case moot, pregnancy litigation seldom will survive much beyond the trial stage, and appellate review will be effectively denied. Our law should not be that rigid. Pregnancy often comes more than once to the same woman, and in the general population, if man is to survive, it will always be with us. Pregnancy provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness. It truly could be "capable of repetition, yet evading review." Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515 (1911). See Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, 816 (1969); Carroll v. Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 178-179 (1968); United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632-633 (1953).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...0_0113_ZO.html (emphasis added).

Again, I do not know the answer but I think that mootness/standing is at least an issue that would have to be resolved if the litigation were still ongoing when the plaintiff turns 21..

[ThesNazud]

I haven't seen anything else on this case, but I may have overlooked it. Anyhow, this may just impact the decision, even though Illinois isn't on the list of states...

Basically 22 State's AG's have joined the NRA in a fight for the rights of 18-20 year olds to purchase a handgun...

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/ne...ng-adults.aspx

[johnwilliamson062]

That 16 year old working for Hot Dog On A Stick at the mall has the same minimum wage, discrimination in the workplace, and other assorted employment laws protecting them. And that enforcement has to be paid for.

That is more or less what those in England said following the French & Indian War. Although not a codified right, no "taxation without representation" is a founding principle of the USA. Those under 18 working and paying taxes are unfairly taxed. Felons in many cases and immigrants are also taxed without representation, but they have made a choice to put themselves in that situation. I still don't agree with it, but it is not as egregious an offense as suffered by those under 18.

Kepp in mind most personal taxes were at one time property taxes and that is why the right to vote was tied to owning property. Restricting property ownership was a way to control who voted without running afoul off this principle.

Being denied the right to vote is itself an unequal protection. The case being discussed is another. There are many. Anyone who can vote is unaffected, so of course no one in power cares at all.