By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—Scotus has four conference days scheduled this month: Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos: Docket No. 23-1141: An argument date has been scheduled before SCOTUS on March 4, 2025; Morse v. Raoul: Case 3:22-cv-02740: On Nov. 12, Judge David W. Dugan reminded the parties that this case stays, but once the stay is lifted, this case will be scheduled as his caseload is reviewed.
SCOTUS
Certiorari: The first four Fridays in November are listed as conference days, with order list issuance days on Nov. 18 and 25. Several cases requesting certiorari were scheduled:
Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos: Docket No. 23-1141: An argument date has been scheduled before SCOTUS on March 4, 2025.
Background: Lower Court Case # 22-1823: Case # 23-1141: On Oct. 4, Certiorari has been granted in this case and 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.
Snope v. Brown: Docket #24-203: On Nov. 25, petitioner David Snope responded to the State of Maryland’s response. We covered that response in our Judicial Report of Nov. 20. As most of this report was written before Snope filed his counterargument, we will write a more in-depth article about it for next week’s Judicial Report. SCOTUS has distributed this case for a conference on Dec. 13.
District Court
Morse v. Raoul: Case 3:22-cv-02740: On Nov. 12, 2024, Judge David W. Dugan reminded the parties that this case stays, but once the stay is lifted, this case will be scheduled as his caseload is reviewed. The state of Illinois has, as of November 2024, managed to postpone activity in these consolidated cases for 2 years.
Background: Anderson v. Raoul: Case 3:23-cv-00728: This case challenging Illinois’ ban on suppressors was filed on Feb. 27, 2023. Morse v. Raoul: Case 3:22-cv-02740: Morse v. Raoul was filed on Nov. 25, 2022, challenging Illinois laws 720 ILCS 570/401 (West 1992)) and 720 ILCS 570/401 (West 1992)), 720 ILCS 5/24-1 (West 1992)). The two cases were consolidated on June 15, 2023, which reset this case from the beginning. On June 26, 2023, the plaintiffs made a motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, while the state of Illinois made a motion to stay Discovery. During 2023, the Illinois government proceeded to initialize delaying tactics, resulting in the entire case being sidelined until a hearing status conference was scheduled for Aug. 21, 2024.
State Court
Pennsylvania Supreme Court: in an article by Jake Fogleman in The Reload, the attempt by the city of Pennsylvania to litigate against the Pennsylvania preemption law has failed. Crawford v. Commonwealth is a lawsuit in whichthe City of Pennsylvania challenged the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s preemption law. It had oral arguments on Sept. 13, 2023, and was finally decided on Nov. 20. In addition to the City of Philadelphia, plaintiffs included the Brady and Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. On the Appellees side were amici curiae from Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League and Firearms Owners Against Crime Institute for Legal, Legislative, and Educational Action. Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, and Heller Foundation.
Fogelman describes the 6-0 Pennsylvania Supreme Court verdict:
“The ruling hands a defeat to the elected officials of Pennsylvania’s largest city, who have fought for years with the state government over their desire to pass restrictive gun laws. It also casts doubt on the ability of gun-control advocates to replicate Philadelphia’s legal strategy in the 40 or so additional states that also have similar firearm preemption statutes.”
Roanoke, VA
The Roanoke Rambler published a story on a lawsuit in the City of Roanoke, VA:
“The lawsuit was brought by the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, and three local individuals: Maynard Keller Jr., Kameron Hamlin, and Mark Smith. Filed Jan. 12 in Roanoke City Circuit Court, the case asks a judge to find the city’s laws are unconstitutional and stop the police chief from enforcing them.”
As Cam Edwards on Bearing Arms reported, “The city hired one of Virginia’s best-known law firms to defend the ordinance and reached out to the gun control group Brady for legal assistance. The attorneys working for Roanoke argued that city parks and buildings should be considered valid “sensitive places” in part because children are often present.”
On Nov. 7, Judge David Carson denied a preliminary injunction, but the case continues.
