By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—Snope v. Brown, Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island, and Antoyuk v. James, still not considered by SCOTUS; Worth v. Jacobson: Case # 23-2248 awaiting a decision on apossible appeal to SCOTUS; Duncan v. Bonta, Case #: 23-55805.new tactic by CRPA; Sauer becomes Solicitor General; Christian v. James: Case No: 22-2987: The Christian v. James case from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Young v. Ott: Case #3:24-cv-00274: is a case about 18-to-20-year-olds and their gun rights being brought in Pennsylvania.
March 28 conference:
Snope, Ocean State, and Antonyuk had been reconferenced on April 4, 2025.
Snope v. Brown: Docket 24-303: This case was distributed for the Supreme Court’s Jan. 10 conference and has been relisted multiple times.
Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island: Docket 24-131: The plaintiffs sought a U.S. Supreme Court review, arguing that the ban infringes on their rights to bear arms in common use.
Antoyuk v. James: Second Appeal to SCOTUS: Case No. 24-795: This case was docketed on Jan. 27, and on March 12 it was listed for the conference on March 28.
Other certiorari appeals
Minnesota: Eighth Circuit
Worth v. Jacobson: Case # 23-2248: Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has asked the United States Supreme Court to hear its Worth v. Jacobson case, agreeing with the State of Minnesota that the Court should take up the State’s petition to affirm FPC’s victory below and eliminate unconstitutional age-based bans across the country. FPC’s Supreme Court brief and the Eighth Circuit’s unanimous decision in favor of FPC and its co-plaintiffs can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/worth.
The U.S. Senate approved John Sauer as Solicitor General.
John Sauer was confirmed in a 52-45 vote on April 7 as the Solicitor General of the United States. The Solicitor General oversees all government litigation, deciding and implementing the administration’s strategy in pursuing cases that primarily go before SCOTUS. He holds a significant position in the federal government and is highly respected within the judicial branch. The United States Supreme Court pays close attention to the Solicitor General.
As Mark W. Smith explains in his latest video, the Solicitor General is ultimately responsible for making strategic decisions regarding litigation, legal strategy, and legal theory related to the cases presented to SCOTUS on behalf of the government. He is often referred to as the 10th justice. Lawyers and others involved in the American judicial system view the Solicitor General as a vital cog in the operation of the Department of Justice.
Sauer is an exceptional lawyer. He is a former federal prosecutor and served as the Solicitor General of Missouri and he also clerked for former Justice Antonin Scalia, the ultimate originalist and the author of Heller.
He successfully represented Donald Trump and was the lawyer who argued in the U.S. Supreme Court against Jack Smith, the former special prosecutor appointed by Biden’s Attorney General Merrick Garland. He won that case and established President Trump’s presidential immunity from many of the events associated with Jan. 6. That argument was a significant victory that curtailed Jack Smith’s inquiries during the summer of 2024, just before the election.
Court of Appeals
California: Ninth Circuit
Duncan v. Bonta, Case #: 23-55805. When I wrote the Background information on this case in the Grassroots Judicial Report dated March 26, I suggested that CRPA will appeal to SCOTUS. However, at 3:15 PM EDT on April 8, Chuck Michel, CRPA President and lead attorney, tweeted the following:
“We have just filed a motion to stay the mandate in Duncan v. Bonta. Without getting too into the weeds, the basic goal here is to protect “freedom week” and grandfathered magazines while we seek cert from the Supreme Court. Since 2019, magazines possessed before the complete ban law and, as a result of Freedom Week, have been shielded from enforcement of the general ban by an order from Judge Benitez. Mandate issuing would ultimately reverse that order, and it would no longer be legal to possess such magazines. Thousands of law-abiding Californians would be turned into criminals.
“The State did not oppose this motion, so we expect and hope it will be granted. Then, our fate relies on the Supreme Court doing the right thing and reversing the en banc majority’s erroneous ruling.”
To explain the legal strategy: “The motion to stay the mandate” is to preserve the legal status of these grand-fathered magazines purchased during the so-called “freedom week.” This is an effort to prevent thousands of Californians from being criminalized while the case is appealed to the Supreme Court.
Background: On March 20, the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc in San Francisco, issued a 7-4 decision upholding California’s ban on large-capacity magazines (LCMs)—defined as magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The majority concluded that this ban is constitutional under the Second Amendment. The case, Duncan v. Bonta, has been a long-running challenge to California’s restrictions, originally stemming from a 2016 voter-approved law (Proposition 63) and earlier statutes limiting magazine capacity.
We can expect the CRPA to file an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court soon. However, as we have been reporting, there are other cases in the SCOTUS docket: Snope v. Maryland (an AR-15 ban case), Ocean State Tactical from Rhode Island, and Antonyuk v. James challenging New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement, A favorable Snope ruling could set a precedent to overturn Duncan. If Snope is not granted certiorari, Duncan will likely not be either. The Supreme Court could issue a summary reversal if it does not want to take the case for a full review next term.
New York: Second Circuit
Christian v. James: Case No: 22-2987: The Christian v. James case from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal stems from the district court’s Oct. 10, 2024, ruling by Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr., which struck down New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) restriction on carrying firearms on private property open to the public (N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01-d) as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The state defendants, represented by New York State Police Superintendent Steven G. James, sought to stay the ruling pending appeal, but the district court denied the stay on October 23, 2024. No rulings have been issued yet.
Circuit Court
Pennsylvania: Third Circuit
Young v. Ott: Case #3:24-cv-00274: On April 4, the Plaintiffs filed a Reply in support of the motion for a preliminary injunction, expedited consolidation with the merits, or, in the alternative, summary judgment. FPC President Brandon Combs commented on the state’s delaying tactic.
“Most courts, including the Third Circuit, have held that adults under 21 have the same Second Amendment rights as all other adults. We look forward to eliminating these bans and restoring the right to keep and bear arms for all peaceable adults.”
From the brief: “When Plaintiffs filed their motion for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, the State sought a stay pending a decision in Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police. Now, displeased with the result in Lara II, the State acts like the case does not exist. This Court does not have that option. It is bound to follow Lara II’s holding that 18-to-20-year-olds have full Second Amendment rights and to rule in Plaintiffs’ favor.”
Background: This case was initiated by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the National Rifle Association (NRA) on Nov. 22, 2024, in the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. On Dec. 20, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in their challenge to the Pennsylvania ban affecting 18-to-20-years from carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home. A telephonic status hearing was held on Jan. 8, 2025, before Judge Stephanie L. Haines. Defendant Colonel Christopher Paris requested a stay pending the case of Lara v. Commissioner State Police, which the US Court of Appeals disposes of for the Third Circuit. The stay was granted. On March 12, the stay was lifted. Since that date, several briefs have been filed, and on March 4, Judge Haines granted defendant Paris’ motion for responding to the plaintiff’s statement of material facts.
