By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: The Supreme Court of the United States’ 2024-2025 term officially began Monday, Oct. 7, 2024;
SCOTUS
Certiorari: Several cases requesting certiorari were scheduled to be considered on Sept. 30, 2024, and Wilson v. State of Hawaii: Case # 23-7517 has been redistributed for a conference on Oct.. 18.
On Oct. 7, SCOTUS ruled on the following cases that were seeking certiorari by vacating the judgment and remanding the cases to the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in light of United States v. Rahimi: Borne, Shawn T. v. United States, Farris, Maurice v. United States, and Willis, Joshua v. United States,
On Oct. 13, SCOTUS ruled on the following case seeking certiorari by granting certiorari, vacating the judgment, and remanding the case to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for further consideration in light of United States v. Rahimi.
Paris, Commissioner, PA State Police v. Lara, Madison M., et al.: Case #24-93: Attorney Mark W. Smith (@FourBoxesDiner on X) had stated in his YouTube video that he believes SCOTUS granted cert and remanded because this case was finalized before the Rahimi decision was announced. Although this case deals with the question of 18-to 20-year-olds who desire to purchase, own, transport, and use firearms, it also concerns a state law with several issues specific to the state of Pennsylvania. He hopes that Reese v. ATF, a lawsuit challenging the federal law prohibiting 18-20-year-olds from purchasing firearms, will be the lawsuit that SCOTUS grants certiorari and finalizes the question of 18 to 20-year-olds and firearms ownership.
Commissioner v. Lara: Pennsylvania filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on July 25 in this challenge to Pennsylvania statutes that deny 18 to 20-year-olds the right to carry firearms in public during a state of emergency.
Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police:As a result of the ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on April 24, Judge William S. Stickman, IV of the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, ordered: “The Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police (“Commissioner”) is hereby ENJOINED from arresting law-abiding persons 18 to 20 years old who openly carry firearms during a state of emergency declared by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”
Background: This case is one of those cases that began before the Bruen decision and was stopped for six months while SCOTUS decided Bruen. It was first filed on Oct. 16, 2020. Then, a motion for a preliminary injunction was filed on Dec. 1, 2020. The final order by Judge William B. Stickman denying the motion for a preliminary injunction and granting the state of Pennsylvania’s motion to dismiss was issued on April 16, 2021. The Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal on April 23, 2021. Then came Bruen. In July 2022, the case at the Circuit Court had to be reargued with the new SCOTUS guidelines in mind.The District Court ruled against the plaintiffs, and they appealed to theUS Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. A three-judge panel of that Court issued this opinion on January 18, 2024: “The words ‘the people’ in the Second Amendment presumptively encompass all adult Americans, including 18- to 20-year-olds, and we are aware of no founding-era law that supports disarming people in that age group. Accordingly, we will reverse and remand.”
On March 27, an en banc hearing was denied. Thus, the three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversal of the District Court stands. According to @2Aupdates, “the vote was 7-6, with every Obama and Biden appointee voting to grant the en banc petition.”
Pennsylvania filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on July 25 in this challenge to Pennsylvania statutes that deny 18 to 20-year-olds the right to carry firearms in public during a state of emergency.
As a result of the ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on April 24, Judge William S. Stickman, IV of the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, ordered: “The Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police (“Commissioner”) is hereby ENJOINED from arresting law-abiding persons 18 to 20 years old who openly carry firearms during a state of emergency declared by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”
SMITH & WESSON BRANDS V. ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS: Lower Court Case # 22-1823: Case # 23-1141: On October 4, 2024, Certiorari was granted in this case, and it will be decided by the end of June 2025: Here is SCOTUS certiorari:
The questions presented are:
1. Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the “proximate cause” of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico.
2. Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked.
Background:
The Mexican Government has sued leading members of the American firearms industry, seeking to hold them liable for harms inflicted by Mexican drug cartels. According to Mexico, America’s firearms companies have engaged in a series of business practices for decades-from selling semi-automatic rifles to making magazines that hold over ten rounds to failing to impose various sales restrictions-that have created a supply of firearms later smuggled across the border and ultimately used by the cartels to commit crimes. Mexico asks for billions of dollars in damages, plus extensive injunctive relief imposing new gun-control measures in the United States.
The district court dismissed the case under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which generally bars suits against firearms companies based on criminals misusing their products. But the First Circuit reversed. It held that PLCAA does not bar this suit because Mexico stated a claim that defendants’ business practices have aided and abetted firearms trafficking to the cartels, proximately harming the Mexican government.
Circuit Court
California: Ninth Circuit
Nguyen v. Bonta: Case 3:20-cv-02470: Ninth Circuit Case 24-2035: Three days after the oral argument, the three-judge panel removed the stay granted by the Circuit Court. We now await the decision on the merits of the case.
Background: This case was filed on December 18, 2020, against California’s One-Gun-A-Month purchase law. On January 5, 2023, the court ordered “additional expert discovery,” then 11 more months passed until oral arguments were held on December 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, 2024, 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 remained 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. Oral arguments were held on August 14.
