Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Cab drivers and gun owners -- two groups not known for their heroic patience -- are anxious to have their cases decided by the D.C. federal courts.
The cabbies are honking mad over a new slew of taxi regulations that may put a strain on the District's most veteran drivers. And the gun owners have fired off a petition to the D.C. Circuit appellate court, hoping it will force the D.C. district court to decide on the issue of public carrying of firearms.
Let's discuss these two impatient cases.
Cab Drivers Challenge Taxi Regulations
According to The Washington Post, five drivers affected by filed suit against the D.C. Taxicab Commission and the District of Columbia over new regulations that required taxicabs to replace dome lights and credit card machines.
On October 9, the cabbies requested a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction preventing the Commission from enforcing the new rules, citing the Fourth Amendment and creating undue burdens for the cab drivers over 40.
For the Fourth Amendment claim, the cab drivers claim that the new GPS trackers in the newly mandated credit card payment systems constitute an illegal search, citing SCOTUS' decision in Jones.
A slightly more chancy gambit is the cabbies' ADA and age discrimination claims, which allege that the new standard dome lights (those lights on the roof of a taxi) discriminate against drivers who have trouble activating the dome light from outside the cab.
Bon chance mes cabbies!
Gun Owners Want Action
Meanwhile, also according to The Washington Times, gun owners are chomping at the bit over a D.C. district court case challenging the District's public firearm ban that has been in judicial limbo for four years. Attorney for the plaintiffs Alan Gura stated in his petition that "delay in resolving this case is manifestly unreasonable."
The plaintiffs, five gun owners and the Second Amendment Foundation, filed a motion for expedited review of the case in August, citing the Second Amendment concerns as meritorious enough for review.
D.C. has managed to keep most of its gun regulations post-Heller, but this gun case, which argues very broadly against public firearm regulations and licensing requirements, goes beyond that.
Gun owners argue that under McDonald v. City of Chicago, this is a case where fundamental rights are at stake (read: right to bear arms) and must be decided pronto. The Times reports a mandamus petition was filed by Gura to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal, but it seems unlikely that the Court will grant such an extreme remedy.
Civil cases can often take half a decade to resolve, especially with large claims. Sometimes, patience really is a virtue.