Luis V. United States, Thomas concurrence
A decision, handed down yesterday. The Court essentially held that the government could not use wide-ranging forfeiture powers to freeze "untainted" money held by defendant, and thereby prevent the defendant from retaining private counsel. Justice Thomas, concurring, adds
"Constitutional rights thus implicitly protect those closely related acts necessary to their exercise. "There comes a point . . . at which the regulation of action intimately and unavoidably connected with [a right] is a regulation of [the right] itself." Hill v. Colorado, 530 U. S. 703, 745 (2000) (Scalia, J., dissenting). The right to keep and bear arms, for example, "implies a corresponding right to obtain the bullets necessary to use them," Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, 746 F. 3d 953, 967 (CA9 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted), and "to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use," Ezell v. Chicago, 651 F. 3d 684, 704 (CA7 2011). See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 617-618 (2008) (citing T. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law 271 (2d ed. 1891) (discussing the implicit right to train with weapons)); United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 180 (1939) (citing 1 H. Osgood, The American Colonies in the 17th Century 499 (1904) (discussing the implicit right to possess ammunition)); Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 178 (1871) (discussing both rights). Without protection for these closely related rights, the Second Amendment would be toothless."
UPDATE: A concurrence has some, limited, presidential value (except where it provides the fifth vote for a position -- then its value increases). It tells us how at least one justice is thinking, it can be cited by lower courts friendly to his position, or can be cited by the Court itself should the Justice someday get a majority to accept it. Directly it doesn't bind the Court, nor even the Justice who wrote it.