By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: Four cases were considered at a conference on Jan. 10: Snope v. Brown Case No. 24-203 (semi-automatic firearms ban); Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island Case No. 24-131 (large capacity magazines); Gray v. Jennings: Case No. 24-309 (preliminary injunction on Second Amendment cases); Maryland Shall Issue, Inc v.Wes Moore: Case No. 24-373 (Handgun Qualification Licensing scheme). Two cases denied certiorari were Gray v. Jennings: Case No. 24-309 and Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. v.Wes Moore: Case No. 24-373. Two cases, Snope v. Brown Case No. 24-203 (semi-automatic firearms ban) and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island Case No. 24-131 (large capacity magazines) are now rescheduled for a conference this Friday, Jan. 17; United States of America v. Patrick Darnell Daniels, Jr. Case No. 22-605596, a consequential case regarding § 922(g)(3) and users of marijuana;New York: Second Circuit
Christian v. James: Case No. 1:22-cv-00695-JLS; Peter v. Lopez: Case 24-cv-00508: a non-US Citizen desires to exercise Second Amendment freedoms in Hawaii; Mate v. Westcott: Case No: 2:24-cv-01780: A lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana against Louisiana’s law prohibiting non-resident American citizens from applying for a Right-to-Carry Permit in Louisiana; Granata v. Healey: Case No. 1:21-cv-10960-DJC: January 6, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment against the Massachusetts Handgun Ban; Young v. Ott: Case No, 3:24-cv-00274: filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition and the National Rifle Association on Dec. 12, 2024, has been stayed.
SCOTUS
Four Second Amendment cases were listed at the conference on Jan. 10. On Monday morning, Jan. 13, the list of cases considered at the meeting included the following two cases that were denied certiorari: As is customary, no explanation was given for the denial of certiorari.
Gray v. Jennings: Case No. 24-309: A petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on Sept. 16, 2024. The state of West Virginia, along with 17 other states, has submitted an amicus brief in support of certiorari. There is a split between the Third Circuit and the Seventh and Ninth Circuits regarding the question before the court—whether the infringement of Second Amendment rights constitutes per se irreparable injury. The Second Amendment Foundation has a webpage about this case that notes:
Noting in their petition that the high court has previously ruled that “the loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury,” SAF and its partners request that the court determine whether the same standard applies to the Second Amendment. “All rights protected by the Constitution are equal,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “and therefore, any infringements on one right should merit the same degree of scorn as infringements against another right.”
Maryland Shall Issue v. Wes Moore: Case No. 24-373: On 9-27-2024, a petition for a writ of certiorari was filed, with the question presented being: Whether Maryland’s Handgun Qualification License Requirement violates the Second Amendment.
The state of Maryland filed its brief in opposition on Dec. 15, followed by the petitioners’ reply brief. The case was Distributed for the Conference on December 24, 2024.
A Second Amendment case for an individual, Andre DuBois v. United States, Case #24-5744, was granted certiorari, the judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration in light of United States v. Rahimi.
Absent from the list of cases considered were the following two cases that had been scheduled for January 10, 2025, and are now rescheduled for the conference this Friday:
Snope v. Brown, formerly Bianchi v. Brown, Case #24-203: This case, concerning banning semiautomatic rifles, has been rescheduled by SCOTUS several times. Background: On Aug. 21, 2024, a petition for a writ of certiorari was filed, with the question presented being:“Whether the Constitution permits the State of Maryland to ban semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in America.”
The state of Maryland filed its brief in opposition on Nov. 11, 2024, followed by the petitioners’ reply brief. The case was distributed for conferences in December 2024 and last Friday, Jan. 10, and now again on Friday of this week.
Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island: Case No. 24-131: Similar to Snope v. Brown, the Supreme Court has ordered that the case be rescheduled. Background: On March 7, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld Judge McConnell Jr.’s denial of a temporary injunction. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on any constitutional claims, reasoning that HB 6614 did not violate the Second Amendment, as the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that “LCMs are ‘arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment’s text.” Consequently, on Aug. 4, 2024, the plaintiffs filed for a writ of certiorari. They had previously appealed Judge John James McConnell Jr.’s denial of their request for a temporary injunction against the Rhode Island ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Similarly, this case was distributed for Conferences on Jan. 10, and now again on Jan. 17.
Case waiting for Oral Argument before SCOTUS:
Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos: Docket No. 23-1141: On Dec. 3, the Second Amendment Foundation filed an expanded amicus brief supporting Smith & Wesson. A date for the argument has been set before SCOTUS on March 4.
U.S. Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Patrick Darnell Daniels, Jr. Case No. 22-605596: On Jan. 6, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a second opinion on this case, in which they decided that this court found: § 922(g)(3) unconstitutional as applied to Daniels unless the government can show that Daniels was disarmed for reasons above and beyond habitual or occasional marijuana use.
Background: This case limits the federal government’s ability under Section 922(g)(3) to prohibit users of marijuana from firearms possession. Patrick Darnell Daniels was charged with violating federal law and convicted of possessing guns while consuming marijuana. In 2023, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that this federal law did NOT pass the Bruen test of text, history, and tradition. In an appeal for certiorari to SCOTUS, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar requested that SCOTUS postpone their decision on this case until after they ruled on Rahimi. After the SCOTUS Rahimi opinion in 2024,
“The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the decision, and remanded it for reconsideration in light of United States v. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. 1889 (2024).”
District Court
Hawaii: Ninth Circuit
Peter v. Lopez: Case 24-cv-00508: This case filed 11/27/24 in the US District Court for the District of Hawaii seeks the protection of the Second Amendment for Billy Peter, a resident of the State of Hawaii but a citizen of the Federated States of Micronesia, to be able to buy and possess a firearm while residing in Honolulu.
Louisiana: Fifth Circuit
Mate v. Westcott: Case No: 2:24-cv-01780: A lawsuit filed on Dec. 23, in the US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana against Louisiana’s law prohibiting American citizens living in a state other than Louisiana from applying for a Right-to-Carry Permit in Louisiana, although the state has a constitutional carry law passed in 2024.
Massachusetts: First Circuit
Granata v. Healey: Case No. 1:21-cv-10960-DJC: Finally, on Jan. 6, 2025, the plaintiffs filed their motion for summary judgment against the Massachusetts Handgun Ban.
Background: On Jan. 31, State of MA filed its brief in First Circuit Court. This case was brought in 2021 challenging the handgun regulatory scheme of the state. On May 19, 2022 Judge Rya W. Zobel in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts found that “the challenged regulations therefore pass intermediate scrutiny.” In June 2022 an appeal was initiated to the US Court of Appeals the First Circuit. The plaintiffs filed a Motion in the Court of Appeals for Vacatur and Remand back to the Circuit Court as a result of the Bruen decision. On Oct. 11, 2022 the First Circuit Court of Appeals denied the motion to Vacate and Remand and the briefing schedule remains in effect. However, on April 7, 2023 the First Circuit Court of Appeals entered the following judgment: “In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), the district court’s judgment is vacated, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. In remanding this matter, we take no position on the outcome previously reached by the district court, and we do not retain jurisdiction. Rather, in the event that any party contests the district court’s decision, a timely new notice of appeal should be filed. No costs are awarded.”
New York: Second Circuit
Christian v. James: Case No. 1:22-cv-00695-JLS: originally Christian v. Nigrelli: On Jan. 8, Judge John L. Sinatra finally issued his decision on the ban on guns in parks in New York state. His decision may be troubling to those who believe in the sanctity of the Second Amendment, but he is following the precedent of the Judicial Circuit (The Second) in which he serves.Judge Sinatra acknowledged that based on Supreme Court Second Amendment decisions, the ban should be struck down. However, he acknowledges the Second Circuit’s previous ruling on a preliminary injunction regarding park bans (Antonyuk), leading him to deny the plaintiff’s motion and grant the government’s cross-motion. In this decision, Sinatra hopes that the Second Circuit would rethink its position and correct its original decision. Whether that happens remains to be decided. This is probably an issue for SCOTUS to take up when this case comes up for review.
Background: This SAF case filed in the US District Court for the Western District of New York challenges the enactment of S51001. On Oct. 10,Judge John Leonard Sinatra, Jr. ruled: “Regulation in this area is permissible only if the government demonstrates that the new enactment is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of sufficiently analogous rules. New York fails that test here. Indeed, property
owners have the right to exclude. But the state may not unilaterally exercise that right and, thereby, interfere with the long-established Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who seek to carry for self-defense on private property open to the public.”
Oral arguments were held on Sept. 12, 2024. Judge John Leonard Sinatra, Jr. stated that he would not rule on the public park question since the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is addressing that issue. He did rule on the “vampire rule,” the prohibition against carrying a gun on private property unless the gun owner has the landowner’s consent.
Although “A preliminary injunction, effective immediately from enforcing N.Y. Pen.L. § 265.01-d concerning private property open to the public” was issued by Judge John L. Sinatra, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a stay in December 2022, and the decision remains stayed.
Pennsylvania: Third Circuit
Young v. Ott: Case No, 3:24-cv-00274: This lawsuit filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition and the National Rifle Association on Dec. 12, 2024, is another one challenging Pennsylvania’s law banning 18 to 20 year olds from acquiring, possessing and carrying firearms. As a result the defendant’s filed a motion to stay on Dec. 30, 2024, which was granted by the District Court on Jan. 8, citing the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s current similar litigation in Madison Lara v. Commissioner, PA State Police.
