Critics Say the Supreme Court Let Virginia Down. Is That Correct?

Added: 2026-05-20

[00:00:00]Hello again everyone. Welcome to Washington Gun Law TV. I'm Washington Gun Law President William Kirk. Thanks for joining us. Now I'm going to acknowledge that we're stepping a little bit out of our lane, but not as far as we do sometimes because this will be relevant to what the United States Supreme Court does, can do, and can't do. Because anytime we see an issue that's being misprayed by either side of the political spectrum or by mainstream media, we feel morally obligated essentially to step in and give it to you straight so you could understand.

[00:00:28]We're going to talk about the big battle that has been brewing over the Virginia redistricting effort and the failed attempts to gerrymander their state.

[00:00:38]Many of which now are pointing the finger at the United States Supreme Court. Is that even fair? That's what we're going to talk about today. So today, let's spend a few minutes. We'll get you educated as we talk about critics say the Supreme Court let Virginia down. Is that correct?

[00:00:57]Okay, America, listen. When I went to law school, we were taught that rules have meanings and that some of the most predominant rules that we follow are found either in statutes or sometimes in our constitution. And this is the case of what occurred in the state of Virginia. Now, without trying to get political about it, the state of Virginia has a method by which you can redistrict the state. The state of Virginia has a specific time period in which redistricting can occur. And if it wants to be done outside of that time period, then there are all sorts of legal hoops that must be jumped through each and every time before a redistricting effort can occur. Where does that all come from? It comes from the Virginia state constitution.

[00:01:46]When either side wants to redistrict in the state and they don't follow the prescribed methods in the state constitution, well then that redistricting effort would be what?

[00:01:56]That's right, unconstitutional.

[00:01:59]That's exactly what's occurred in the state of Virginia. Now, they immediately appealed to the state supreme court. And the state supreme court in a decision 4 to3 found that no, the efforts to redistrict the state had been improperly implemented. they were in violation of the state constitution. And so the ruling of the court was not that the votes should not have been counted. The ruling of the court was is that it should have never been on the ballot to begin with. But today's lesson is this is if the United States Supreme Court is the Supreme Court of the land, do they have any obligation to take a case that comes out of one state that deals only with that state law and the interpretation of that state constitution which was then answered by that state's highest court? And the answer is no. They do not have any obligation to take a case like that. And as a matter of fact, it would be highly improper for them to even consider taking a case like that. That is why in the case we're talking about today of Scott v. McDougall, you saw a very unceremonious denial of a petition by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Now, the state of Virginia, who had every right in the world to take this to the highest court in their state and get the answer that they received, despite the fact that they didn't like that answer, really that was the end of the case. And candidly, the state attorney general in Virginia knew that or should have known that. Now, despite the fact that the state of Virginia pled the following in their petition to the United States Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of Virginia's decision was predicated on a grave misunderstanding of federal law.

[00:03:44]The state of Virginia really cited to no federal law that they felt had been violated. They also claimed the Supreme Court of Virginia's decision transgressed the ordinary bounds of judicial review, which is a translation for we don't like the way they ruled.

[00:04:00]So, was this case even ripe? Was it even proper for the United States Supreme Court to accept review? Well, the answer is no. The US Supreme Court will not take a case that involves only issues of state law. The court's jurisdiction is strictly limited to cases that raise questions of federal law or the US Constitution.

[00:04:21]State Supreme Courts are the final arbiters of their own state laws and constitutions. So you see, the United States Supreme Court is only going to take a case if it involves a federal question. That is the application of federal law or the application of federal constitutional principles. This case presented neither. And as a matter of fact, even if the case had to some degree a federal issue, if there is a state constitutional or statutory provision that addresses the problem and comes up with the correct remedy, the court won't even step in there under the doctrine of independent and adequate state grounds. where even if a case contains a federal issue, the US Supreme Court will decline to hear it if the state's court's decision also rests on a separate independent state law ground that fully resolves the case. And so, anytime you have a case that is being completely litigated on state law or state constitutional principles, the last court to ever rule on it will be that state's Supreme Court. Now, we talk about Supreme Court cases all the time here in the Second Amendment context.

[00:05:33]There are two cases that we've already talked about. One of which is the case out in Oregon, a challenge to Oregon ballot measure 114, Arnold v. Cotech.

[00:05:41]That case was completely and totally pled under state statutory grounds and state constitutional grounds, which means when the Oregon State Supreme Court rules on that case, that will be the final decision because no second amendment grounds were pled in that case. One of the many challenges to Virginia's assault weapon ban, currently kicking around right now, is also completely pled on state constitutional principles, which means the state supreme court of Virginia will be the final arbiter of that case because no federal question, no application of federal constitutional principles is pled in that case. As a matter of fact, the only time that you will see the United States Supreme Court, no matter what the political makeup of it is, no matter who the chief justice is, even consider taking a case that deals almost exclusively with state law is in the following instances. Federal state overlap. If a state court relies on a state constitution, but its decision is intertwined or misapplies federal law, well then the United States Supreme Court may actually step in and accept review. They also may step in if there's a violation of federal rights. State constitutions can grant more rights to citizens than the United States Constitution, but they cannot grant fewer. If a state court's interpretation violates the US Constitution or federal law, then the United States Supreme Court would step in. So if you had a state court say, "Hey, we believe our equivalent of the Fourth Amendment here actually provides less protection than the Fourth Amendment, and that's the standard by which we're going to judge this." Yes. Then and only then could the United States Supreme Court step in because what? There is a question as to the applicability of the federal Fourth Amendment standards. Now, I'll be honest with you. You don't really need to go to law school to understand any of this.

[00:07:35]This is probably taught in a basic high school civics class. It certainly is taught at college level. And I did have an opportunity to take a look at Jay Jones's curriculum vite and notice that he was a graduate of the University of Virginia Law School, an excellent law school, one that I'm sure their curriculum would have covered all of these things. But then I decided, well, why don't I just go and take a look at the University of Virginia Law School's curriculum to see what's being taught there. And lo and behold, yes, in the very first semester as a 1L, you're taught civil procedure. This would have been instructed of him at that time. Uh you're also required to take both remedies and conflicts while you're there. Again, the subject matter would cover all of it there as well. And then many lawyers will actually take constitutional law as well as federal court law, also offered at the University of Virginia Law School. So, one could assume that attorney general Jones would have had multiple multiple opportunities at one of America's premier public law schools to learn this. Of course, then he's also been in practice for a number of years. So, one would have also figured that he would have realized that the United States Supreme Court had absolutely no business taking this case and that his petition was dead before it even got there. So, why then do they make this petition and why then are they continuously pointing the fingers at the United States Supreme Court? Well, it's very simple. They're trying to blame the court for their unconstitutional actions. They're trying to discredit the court. And this is all part of the grand plan of trying to regain power on a national level and then pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices. And listen, anyone who watches this channel all the time knows that we at times are incredibly critical of the United States Supreme Court as we were earlier today during WGLAM on the Adamia case. But the bottom line here is is that no matter who tries to redistrict, when you do so in violation of your state constitution, that is unconstitutional gerrymandering. And it if it is resolved at the highest court of your state under state constitutional grounds, there is no way on God's green earth that the United States Supreme Court is going to take that case. And that is why anyone who's criticizing the United States Supreme Court for not accepting the Virginia redistricting case is either clueless or full of crap.

[00:09:53]Okay, the case once again is Scott v.

[00:09:56]McDougall. We'll go ahead and link up the very brief order from the United States Supreme Court rejecting this petition. We'll also go ahead and link up the ruling from the Virginia State Supreme Court, the final say in this case. If you got any other questions about this or about the stuff we normally talk about here at Washington Gun Law, you guys should know how to get a hold of us by now, but if you don't, that's okay. That information is down there in the description box. If you got an idea for a video, maybe another topic we want to hear us talk about, great.

[00:10:23]Click on that link right there. Tell us all about it. If you want to subscribe to our monthly newsletter, find out about all the cool things they don't let us talk about here, and meet all of our new sponsors, there's a link in the description box for you to do that. And then finally, and most importantly, let's everyone remember that part of being the lawful and responsible gun owner, like we normally talk about here, is to know what the law is in every situation, how it applies to you in any instance that you may find yourself.

[00:10:45]Until next time, thanks for watching and stay safe.