This month on SCOPAblog, the Court issued 3 opinions and 11 allocatur grants.  On the opinion side, the headline-getter is clearly Crawford, in which the plaintiffs raised a series of what could be called creative challenges to state laws preventing localities from enacting gun-safety regulations.  In an opinion authored by Justice Brobson, and with an increasingly rare unanimous joinder of the other Justices, the Court rejected the claims.  But along the way, Justice Brobson capably discussed a number of areas of law that are frequently at play: the intersection between the General Assembly and local governments generally, the intersection the General Assembly and Home Rule municipalities, existing state regulation of firearms, and the fundamental constitutional right to bear arms.  The opinion is sure to serve as a primer for attorneys litigating related issues in the future. 

Also notable is Saunders, in which the Court declined to extend an earlier decision holding that warrantless searches of automobiles violate the Pennsylvania constitutional right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures to a warrantless seizure of an unsecured firearm.  At the conceptual level, it is difficult to square that a warrantless search of a vehicle is unconstitutional, but a warrantless entry into the vehicle and seizure of an item therein is, a point that Justice Donohue in dissent ably makes.  Saunders represents a more holistic conception of privacy interests and state intrusion.

Finally, in two summary dispositions, consistent with its decisions in October, the Court effectively stopped election litigation from having effect in Pennsylvania for purposes of the 2024 Presidential Election, with different degrees of temper in expressing the point.  In a concurring statement regarding one of the orders, Justice Dougherty identifies in no uncertain terms that the Court's increasing reluctance to weigh in comes from the proliferation of election litigation generally and the breakneck pace at which it is conducted.  Although both of these factors are somewhat endogenous to holding elections in a highly-contested jurisdiction in a highly-contested election, it is true that there is also some gamesmanship at play.  That said, the increased reticence during elections is a marked difference as compared to even a few years ago, and there is room for sympathy for litigants attempting to properly time election matters, whose interests may not accrue or be clear until well into campaign season, given that there are weeks of early voting before elections that occur every six months, and given that interests may expire and issues become moot after voting has occurred.  In all events, the Court has signaled that it intends to address a number of election issues in due course, which will allow it to deliberate thoughtfully, give advice for prospective elections, and issue decisions outside the context of clear partisan interests.  On balance, the practice may be worse for candidates, but better for democratic legitimacy. 

Precedential Opinions

Crawford v. Commonwealth, 19 EAP 2022 (Opinion by Brobson, J.) (rejecting challenge to state preemption of certain local gun-safety regulation)

Commonwealth v. Saunders, 20 EAP 2023 (Opinion by Dougherty, J.) (holding an officer may conduct a warrantless seizure of a firearm observed in plain view in an automobile during a traffic stop)

• See also Concurring Opinion by Todd, C.J.
• See also Dissenting Opinion by Donohue, J.

Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. v. Commonwealth, 8 MAP 2023 (Opinion by Wecht, J.) (holding earlier decision declaring a corporate tax deduction unconstitutional and its reasoning should be applied prospectively)

• See also Concurring Opinion by Mundy, J.
• See also Concurring Opinion by McCaffery, J.
• See also Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Todd, C.J.
• See also Dissenting Opinion by Brobson, J.

Allocatur Grants

Commonwealth v. Fitzpatrick, 273 MAL 2024 (granting review to consider the lower court's analysis of a challenge to the admissibility of expert opinions not articulated to a reasonable degree of certainty)

In Re: Dravo LLC,  125 - 126 WAL 2024 (granting review to consider the lower court's analysis of a challenge to corporate veil piercing in the context of a dissolved entity)

Office of AG v. Gillece, 209 WAL 2024 (granting review to consider consumer protection claims related to home improvement contract cancellation)

In Re: Smith, 13 - 14 EAL 2024 (granting review to consider statutory authority and standards for motions of return of property in a case where the owner was not convicted of the underlying crime)

Commonwealth v. Sutton, 299 MAL 2024 (granting review to consider whether the Commonwealth can establish a prima facie case of a defendant's identity with hearsay in cases involving confidential informants)

Aloia, & Stimson, Pets. v. Diament Building Corp., 292 MAL 2024 (granting review to consider the appropriate analysis for whether construction was lawfully performed for purposes of the applicable statute of repose)

Miron v. Delaware Co. Tax Claim Bur., 223 MAL 2024 (granting review to consider the proper notice for mortgagees who hold mortgages on property subject to upset tax sale)

Balfour Beatty Comm v. Penn Patriot Ins., 60 EAL 2024 (granting review to consider the proper characterization of equitable estoppel as a legal or equitable defense in the insurance context and the appropriate standards for certified appeals)

In the Int. of: S.B., 314 - 315 EAL 2024 (granting review to consider a challenge to the admissibility of certain school records and the sufficiency of the evidence in a truancy case)

Alsyrawan v. DHS, 289 MAL 2024 (granting review to consider the lower court's analysis of First Amendment Free Exercise and Pennsylvania Religious Freedom Protection Act claims)

Thomas v. Sysco Foods, 151 & 156 EAL 2024 (granting review to consider the lower court's analysis of the burden of proof of to prove available alternative work in a workers' compensation case)