By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: One decision has been issued: National Rifle Association v. Vullo, and it appears that the June 6 conference may be “the new 2A day at SCOTUS”; Wilson v. Hawaii: Case # 23-7517: A petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on May 25, 2024; Delaware: USA v. Robert Hunter Biden: Case#:1:23-cv-00061-MN: Jury trial began on June 3; Nguyen v. Bonta: Case 3:20-cv-02470: Ninth Circuit Case 24-2035: The Ninth Circuit has scheduled oral arguments for Aug. 14 in our lawsuit challenging California’s ‘one-gun-per-month’ gun ban law.
SCOTUS
A conference is scheduled for Thursday, June 6. The orders from each conference will be issued on the following Monday at 7 a.m. EDT, June 10.
On June 3, Second Amendment litigator and President of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, Chuck Michel @CRPAPresident, posted the following on X (formerly known as Twitter):
“SCOTUS relisted the Illinois cases again. They are now set for June 6, the same day Antonyuk was already scheduled. So that’s the new 2A day at SCOTUS. SCOTUS could do several things. Deny the cert request of any or all cases, grant cert on any or all cases, hold one or more again until Rahimi comes down and possibly GVR one or more of these cases, or do some other things. Stay tuned.”
National Rifle Association v. Vullo: Oral arguments were held on Monday, March 18, and the Supreme Court issued its opinion on May 30.
“For the reasons discussed above, the Court holds that the NRA plausibly alleged that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing DFS-regulated entities to terminate their business relationships with the NRA in order to punish or suppress the NRA’s advocacy.
“The judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is vacated, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
The most concise sentence that summarizes this case is the penultimate one: “Ultimately, the critical takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries.”
This decision does not end this case. According to a podcast with attorney Robert Corn-Revere on thereload.com, the SCOTUS case is about the underlying principles of the case and not about the case itself. If the NRA wins at the Supreme Court, that gives them a do-over in the lower courts. It means that the case still needs to be fully decided.
Thus, the SCOTUS decided that Commissioner Vullo’s activity suppressed the NRA’s First Amendment rights. It now goes back to the District Court to be litigated in light of the opinion. The lower courts will also decide whether former Commissioner Vullo has qualified immunity. On June 3, Defendant Vullo filed a MOTION, emergency under seal, on behalf of Appellant Maria T. Vullo. FILED. Service date 06/03/2024 by CM/ECF.[3625159] [21-636].
From The NY Times: The A.C.L.U. Has a New Client: The National Rifle Association
That was a headline from The NY Times of Dec. 9, 2023. In the article, ACLU’s David Cole emphasized his group’s distaste for Second Amendment rights, but it supports the NRA in its case against NY state’s lawsuit entitled NRA v. Vullo. I described this case in Grassroots Judicial Update #43 in detail. The case concerns NRA’s First Amendment rights that were trampled on by Marie Vullo, who became Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s Superintendent of NYS Department of Financial Services (DFS) in 2016.
Wilson v. Hawaii: Case # 23-7517: A petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on May 25. The response is due by June 20. This lawsuit is a result of the case in which Christophe L. Wilson was charged with carrying a handgun without a license. The Hawaii Supreme Court: “The Hawai’i Supreme Court ruled for the State. It accused this Court of ‘handpick[ing] history to make its own rules’ and declared that the Bruen test is ‘fuzzy,’ ‘backward-looking,’ and ‘unravels durable law.’ It held that the mere existence of a licensing scheme allows the State to prosecute.”
Circuit Courts
California: Ninth Circuit
Nguyen v. Bonta: Case 3:20-cv-02470: Ninth Circuit Case 24-2035: The Ninth Circuit has scheduled oral arguments for August 14th in our lawsuit challenging California’s ‘one-gun-per-month’ gun ban law. On June 3, 2024, Second Amendment litigator and President of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, Chuck Michel @CRPAPresident, posted the following on X (formerly known as Twitter):
“CRPA, joined by the Second Amendment Law Center and Operation Blazing Sword-Pink Pistols, has filed an amicus brief in Nguyen v. Bonta, a case challenging California’s limit of one gun purchase per 30 days. As our brief points out, this law makes it so that someone newly into sports shooting may not purchase a shotgun for hunting and skeet shooting if he also is purchasing a handgun for self-defense. Such a limitation has no precedent in the Founding Era nor the Reconstruction Era, and even today, only a small handful of states have similar laws. The district court was right to strike it down. Link here.”
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,” then 11 more months passed until oral arguments were held on Dec. 6, 2023. This case includes the 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 Adam Kraut 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. California filed an Emergency Motion under Circuit Court Rule 27-3 for a stay pending appeal on April 4. On April 24, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the stay.
District Courts
Delaware: Third Circuit
USA v. Robert Hunter Biden: Case#:1:23-cv-00061-MN: The jury trial began on June 3, 2024, and is expected to last 5 to 6 weeks. Biden is charged with falsifying his form 4470 regarding his drug use. According to NBC news: “Hunter Biden is charged with three counts tied to possession of a gun while using narcotics. Two of the counts accuse him of having completed a form indicating he was not using illegal drugs when he bought a Colt Cobra revolver on Oct. 12, 2018. The third count alleges he possessed a firearm while using a narcotic. “No one is allowed to lie on a federal form like that. Not even Hunter Biden,” Hines said.
Background: On July 27, 2023, the government brought criminal charges against Robert Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden, in the area of failure to pay taxes and charged with possession of a firearm by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance in violation of 18 United States Code Sections 922(g)(3) and 924(a)(2). On May 9, 2024, Hunter Biden’s motion to dismiss his gun charges based on 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(2) was denied by District Judge Maryellen Noreika. AP reported:
“U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika rejected Hunter Biden’s request to push the trial in Delaware until September, which the defense said was necessary to line up witnesses and review evidence handed over by prosecutors. The judge said she believes “everyone can get done what needs to get done” by the trial’s start date of June 3.”
Additionally, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on May 21, 2024, Denied Hunter Biden’s appeal for an Emergency Motion for An Administrative Stay and Permanent Stay of District Court Proceedings Pending Appeal and Stay of This Court’s Consideration of Biden’s Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc.
Texas: Fifth Circuit
Knife Rights, Inc. v. Garland (4:23-cv-00547): This case was filed by Knife Rights, Inc. And several other plaintiffs to: “Challenge the constitutionality of the Federal Switchblade Act (the “Act”) as inconsistent with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs specifically assert that the Federal Switchblade Act enacted in 1958, prohibiting the introduction, manufacture for introduction, transportation, or distribution into interstate commerce of switchblade knives, violates the Second Amendment.”
On June 32, 2024, Federal Judge Reed O’Connor dismissed the lawsuit because “there are only records of four enforcement actions in the [country] under the Act since 2004, and it has not been enforced since 2010…Accordingly, the threat of prosecution under Section 1242 *is therefore a mere hypothetical dispute lacking the concreteness and imminence required by Article III. ” Nat’1 Press Photographers Ass ‘n, 90 F.4th at 782.”
