Uncle linked to a piece by David Codrea where there’s some dispute as to whether NRA’s case was combined with SAF/Gura’s case, and whether saying they are constitutes a misrepresentation of facts by NRA. The Court granted cert to McDonald, which was SAF’s case and which was brought by Alan Gura. NRA was made a party to the case — Respondants in Support of Petitioners — under rule 12 of the Supreme Court Rules. So it would definitely be correct to say NRA was a party to the case, but is it correct to say they were consolidated? I would also note this passage from Alan Gura’s Petitioner’s brief, in the section described as “Parties to the Proceedings”
The three cases were related, but not consolidated, in the District Court. Petitioners and the related case plantiffs appealed the District Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which consolidated the appeals.
Emphasis is mine. I would say if the language is good enough to be put before the Court, NRA is free and clear in saying that. NRA has in the past, wrongly in my opinion, played up its role in certain cases and controversies at the expense of other involved parties. But this is not an example of that.
UPDATE: I should probably clarify that saying the cases were combined, rather than that the appeals were combined, is probably incorrect technically. More correct would be the appeals were combined, and NRA made a party (RespondentÂ in Support of Petitioner) to the McDonald case. I’m pretty sure that is a correct statement.
If someone wants to flay Chris Cox, or whoever wrote that article for him on his behalf, they are free to nit pick. But it seems to me a nit pick. I don’t know how familiar Chris Cox is with the distinction between those two things, or whether anyone explained it to him in great legal detail.