By Tanya Metaksa
HISTORIC SECOND AMENDMENT
U.S. SUPREME COURT CONFERENCE
ON JANUARY 10, 2025
The United States Supreme Court has announced that it will conference three significant Second Amendment cases this Friday, Jan. 10, 2025.
This is a significant conference for Second Amendment supporters and all who want to see this Supreme Court take up cases that will set a precedent for years. The conference will determine whether these cases will be considered and decided during this term (ending in June 2025).
1. AR-15 (Assault Weapons case) Snope vs. Brown, Case #24-203: challenges Maryland’s ban on semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15. The case was initially known as Bianchi vs. Brown before being renamed Snope vs. Brown. Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Second Amendment Foundation, and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms have worked on it since its inception.
Background: Maryland’s Firearms Safety Act of 2013 bans the sale, purchase, receipt, transport, transfer, or possession of certain semi-automatic firearms categorized as “assault weapons.” The case challenges the constitutionality of this ban under the Second Amendment.
Legal Decisions: Initially, the Fourth Circuit Court upheld Maryland’s law in Kolbe vs. Hogan before being revisited with the new standards set by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Bruen (2022). The Supreme Court granted Cert, Vacated, and Remanded (GVR) in light of the Bruen decision, indicating the need for reconsideration based on new Second Amendment jurisprudence. The 4th Circuit reviewed the case en banc. It upheld Maryland’s ban with a 10-5 vote, with the majority focusing on interest-balancing arguments, which were criticized by the dissent for ignoring the Second Amendment’s historical context.
2. Large Capacity Feeding Devices: Ocean State Tactical vs. Rhode Island, Case # 23-1072: This lawsuit challenges Rhode Island’s 2022 law, the Large Capacity Feeding Device Ban (HB 6614). This law prohibits the possession of large-capacity magazines (LCMs) capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. Owners were required to modify, sell, remove from the state, or surrender these magazines. Ocean State Tactical, LLC, and individual gun owners filed this case.
Background: The case was initially filed in the US District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The plaintiffs argued that the Rhode Island ban infringes on their Second Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and Due Process rights.
Legal Decisions: The U.S. District Court for Rhode Island initially denied a preliminary injunction against the law’s enforcement, ruling that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed in their constitutional claims. On appeal, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the district court’s decision. They found that the LCM ban was consistent with a historical tradition of regulating firearms for public safety, drawing an analogy to the regulation of other dangerous arms like sawed-off shotguns. The court noted that LCMs are rarely used for self-defense and are more associated with mass shootings.
3. Preliminary injunctions on Second Amendment cases and Assault Weapons Bans: Gray vs Jennings, Case No. 24-309: Originating in Delaware, this case addresses the standards for preliminary injunctions related to Second Amendment rights, particularly emphasizing when governmental actions should be restrained from infringing upon these rights. Additionally, this legal action challenges Delaware’s “assault weapons” ban, specifically HB450, enacted in 2022. The law prohibits the manufacture, sale, transfer, purchase, receipt, possession, or importation of “assault weapons” within Delaware. Besides the named plaintiffs, the Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation have also been involved.
Legal Decisions: The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, prompting an appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard the appeal, and the court affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction. This resulted in a circuit split regarding whether Second Amendment violations automatically constitute irreparable harm.
President Trump and the U.S. Supreme Court
As we witnessed during President Donald J. Trump’s first term (2017-2021), he had several opportunities to shape the makeup of the Supreme Court. He added three, which swung the balance to more Second Amendment supporters. As we have witnessed, those opportunities do not arise often and are not usually predictable. During Biden’s four-year term, he only got to nominate one Associate Justice. But if the opportunity presents itself, during a 2025-2029 term, President Donald Trump could potentially reshape the Supreme Court in the following ways:
1. Nominating Justices: Presidents can nominate new justices if there are retirements or vacancies. If a current justice retires or passes away, Trump could appoint a new justice with Senate approval, which might tilt the ideological balance, depending on the departing justice’s leanings.
2. Strategic Appointments: Trump might look for younger, conservative judges to ensure his appointees serve long terms, potentially solidifying a conservative-leaning court for decades.
3. Shift in Judicial Philosophy: Each justice brings a unique perspective, potentially influencing the court’s approach to key legal doctrines, like constitutional interpretation, which affects decisions on issues like voting rights, environmental regulations, and federal authority.
4. Senate Confirmation: The Senate’s role is crucial in confirming nominees. A Senate majority from Trump’s party would facilitate this process. However, a Senate controlled by the opposition could complicate or block confirmations.
The president’s influence on the Supreme Court thus largely depends on the opportunities that arise and the political alignment of the Senate.
