Update and Summary of NH Supreme Court case: Daniel Richard versus Christopher Sununu

This summary captures the essence of Richard's request to submit additional legal information after the deadline, highlighting the rationale behind the request, its importance to the case, and its potential impact on the court's decision-making process.

Summary of Motion for Leave to File Third Late Authority

Case: Daniel Richard vs. Christopher Sununu

Petitioner: Daniel Richard

Respondent: Christopher Sununu

Motion: The petitioner, Daniel Richard, is seeking permission from the court to file a third late authority. This motion requests the court's leave to submit additional legal authority or argument after the usual deadline has passed.

Key Points:

Reason for Late Filing:

• The petitioner justifies the late submission by stating that the new authority or argument was not available or known at the time of the original deadline.

• The petitioner believes that this new information is crucial for the court’s consideration and could significantly impact the outcome of the case. Importance of the Third Late Authority:

• The new authority or argument addresses a pivotal legal issue or provides a precedent directly relevant to the case at hand.

• The petitioner argues that including this authority will aid the court in making a more informed and just decision. Impact on the Proceedings:

• The petitioner claims that allowing the late filing will not prejudice the respondent or unduly delay the proceedings.

• The motion suggests that the court's consideration of the third late authority is in the interest of justice and fairness. Legal Basis:

• The motion is grounded in the principle that courts should have access to all relevant legal materials and arguments to render a fair judgment.

• The petitioner references previous instances where courts have permitted late filings under similar circumstances. Request for Relief:

• The petitioner respectfully requests the court to grant leave to file the third late authority.

• The motion concludes with a plea for the court to consider the newly submitted authority in its deliberations. Purpose of the Motion:

• The appellant, Daniel Richard seeks the court's permission to submit a new late authority, specifically, the recent Supreme Court decision in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, in support of his argument for standing. NOVEMBER 29, 2023, ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE GORDON J. MACDONALD, JUSTICE JAMES P. BASSETT, JUSTICE ANNA BARBARA HANTZ MARCONI, JUSTICE PATRICK E. DONOVAN JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT https://www.lapennaliberta.com/post/daniel-richard-november-23-2023-supreme-court-oral-arguments
  

Key Points of the Alexander Decision:

1. Reaffirmation of Previous Authorities:

• The Alexander decision reaffirms the legal principles established in Moore v. Harper (2023), New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (2022), and District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

• These cases collectively support the appellant’s use of the Heller/Bruen methodology for constitutional interpretation, particularly in election law.

1. Methodology for Constitutional Review:

• Justice Clarence Thomas, concurring in part with the Alexander decision, emphasizes that the standard of review for the rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, including the Elections Clause, must follow the Heller/Bruen methodology rather than means-end scrutiny.

• This approach aligns with the appellant's argument that the court should examine his case using the Heller/Bruen standard.

1. Impact on Election Law:

• The Alexander case, although focused on election law, cites Bruen, thereby supporting the appellant's use of this methodology in election-related cases.

• Justice Thomas highlights the comprehensive role of state legislatures in prescribing the times, places, and manner of federal elections, subject to congressional oversight, but not judicial intervention.

1. Relevant Legal Precedents:

• The motion references fifteen cases since June 2023 that have cited Moore v. Harper, underscoring the judicial duty to evaluate the constitutionality of legislative acts.

• It also notes that the Bruen decision has been cited 78 times since June 2022, illustrating its widespread influence.

Appellant's Argument:

• The appellant argues that the new authority from the Alexander decision supports his claim for standing and reinforces his earlier citations of Moore, Bruen, and Heller.

• The decision validates his methodological approach to constitutional interpretation and underscores the importance of judicial review in election law cases.

Request for Relief:

• The appellant respectfully requests the court to consider this new authority in its deliberations and grant him standing in the case.

Conclusion:

• The motion concludes with the appellant's respectful submission of the new authority for the court’s consideration, aiming to strengthen his legal position in the ongoing case.