By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: Garland v. VanDerStok: Case No. 23-10718: the case has now been distributed for the SCOTUS Conference of April 19; May v. Bonta & Carralero v. Bonta: Case 23-4354 and 23-4356: Oral argument was held on April 11; Nguyen v. Bonta: Case 4-2035; On April 15 the Plaintiffs-Appellees, Nguyen et al filed a response to Defendants-Appellants, California, Emergency Stay Pending Appeal; McRory v. Garland: Case No: 23-20837: On April 3, a hearing was held before the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; Oregon: Oregon Appeals Court: Arnold v. Kotek: Case # A183242: On April 12, the Court of Appeals of the State of Oregon denied the State of Oregon’s request to allow Measure 114 to go into effect.
SCOTUS
The following cases were scheduled for the SCOTUS conference on April 12. Scheduling does not guarantee the Court will address a case.
Garland v. VanDerStok: Case No. 23-10718: The timetable for responses to the certiorari petition was extended and has now been distributed for the SCOTUS Conference of April 19.
Bianchi v. Brown: Case No. 23-863: Second Amendment challenge to Maryland “assault weapons” ban. On April 12 the brief of Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown was submitted
Brown v. United States: Case No. 22-10892: firearms prohibition for a felony offense. Response due May 9.
Ratcliff v. United States: Case No. 23-6278: firearms prohibition for a felony offense. DENIED.
Courts of Appeal
California: Ninth Circuit
May v. Bonta & Carralero v. Bonta: Case 23-4354 and 23-4356:view Smith’s YouTube The hearing was held on April 11. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit videotapes their hearings which can be accessed here.
The three judges questioned the California Department of Justice attorney, concerning a possible split between Circuits due to the Antonyuk v. Chiumento case in the Second Circuit. The two attorneys for the Second Amendment plaintiffs were quite clear in why the Antonyuk decision on the preliminary injunction was incorrect. However, the three judges all appeared to favor California’s expansion of “sensitive places” as provided in SB2.
Background: After passage of SB2, a Bruen-response bill creating “sensitive places” where firearms are not allowed, this lawsuit was initiated on Sept. 12, 2023. Plaintiffs include CRPA, GOA, SAF, and others. On Oct. 3, the court hearing was rescheduled for Dec. 20, 2023. On Dec. 30, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 3-judge Motions panel stayed the District Court’s injunction in the combined cases of Carralero v. Bonta and May v. Bonta. The case was sent to a “merits” panel for further adjudication. Thus on Jan. 1, SB2 became effective and prohibited those with carry permits from carrying in “specific sensitive places”. On Jan. 6 the Merits panel reinstated the injunction that had been ordered by District Judge Cormack J. Carney and denied the state of California’s motion for a stay. Californians with carry permits are now no longer prohibited from carrying firearms in the same manner they were able to before December 30.
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Oral argument has been scheduled for April 11. The “luck of the draw” has not been favorable for this case. On April 1, 2024, Mark W. Smith @fourboxesdiner (if you are not following him, you should) on X (formerly known as Twitter), tweeted:
“TERRIBLE ANTI-2A PANEL IN RENO MAY, ET AL CASE. The Ninth Circuit’s panel assignment for the Carralero, May, and Woolford (CA & HI gun-free zone cases) argument is available and it’s terrible. JUDGES MARY SCHROEDER, SUSAN GRABER, and JENNIFER SUNG.”
Nguyen v. Bonta: Case 3:20-cv-02470: Ninth Circuit Case 24-2035: California filed an Emergency Motion under Circuit Court Rule 27-3 for a stay pending appeal on April 4. On April 15 the Plaintiffs-Appellees, Nguyen et al, filed a response to Defendants-Appellants, California, Emergency Stay Pending Appeal.
Background: This case was filed on December 18, 2020, against California’s One-Gun-A-Month purchase law. On Jan. 5, 2023, the court ordered “additional expert discovery” and then 11 more months passed until oral arguments were held on Dec. 6, 2023. This case includes these plaintiffs—The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), North County Shooting Center, San Diego County Gun Owners Pac, and others who —challenged the California One-Gun-A-Month purchase law. It was decided by Federal Judge William Q. Hayes on March 11, in favor of the plaintiffs. SAF Executive Director announced the decision stating:
“There is nothing in the Second Amendment remotely connected to limiting the number of firearms a person can purchase. This limitation is blatantly unconstitutional, and if this ruling is appealed by the State of California, we intend to defend the lower court’s correct decision.”
Judge Hayes issued a judgment on March 28, and stayed his order for 30 days. The law will remain in effect until April 27.
Texas: Fifth Circuit:
McRory v. Garland: Case No: 23-20837: On April 3, a hearing was held before the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
McRory v. Garland: Case No. 7:23-cv-00047-O; On Jan. 8, 2024, the plaintiffs appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Background: This case was initiated On Aug. 14, 2023, in response to the provision in the “Bipartisan Safer Communities Act” passed by Congress and signed by President Biden on June 25, 2023, that required an automatic, nationwide, indefinite waiting period on any person desiring to purchase a firearm who is at least 18 years of age but under 21 years of age. The plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction until a decision on the merits can be reached. On Aug. 14, 2023, Judge Reed O’Connor of the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas Denied their motions.
State Courts
Oregon: Oregon Appeals Court
Arnold v. Kotek: Case # A183242: On April 12, 2024, the Court of Appeals of the State of Oregon denied the State of Oregon’s request to allow Measure 114 to go into effect. The Court also mentioned in its order that:
“Amici curiae–the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Oregon Alliance for Gun Safety, Lift Every Voice Oregon, and Ceasefire Oregon–file a brief in support of the state’s motion to stay and motion to expedite the appeal.”
Background: Arnold v. Brown: On November 21, 2023, Judge Robert S. Raschio ruled:
“The declaratory judgment is preventive justice, designed to relieve parties of uncertainty by adjudicating their rights and duties before wrongs have been committed. Hale v. State, 259 Or. App. 379, review denied 354 Or. 840 (2013). This court is preventing the undue burden of Ballot Measure 114 from being imposed on current, and prospective, gun owners who have a right to lawfully possess firearms to defend themselves and the state against imminent threats of harm.
“Under ORS 28.010, et. al., the court, using its equitable power, DECLARES and ADJUDGES Ballot Measure 114 facially unconstitutional in all of its applications under the Oregon Constitution, Article I, § 27. The court makes this declaration to settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity concerning the right to bear arms in Oregon. ORS 28.120. Ballot Measure 114 is permanently enjoined from implementation.
“The court orders costs upon a filing under ORCP 69 that are just and equitable for the plaintiffs. ORS 28.100.”
