By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: Snope v. Brown and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island postponed to conference on Friday, Feb. 28; Lackey v. Stinny: No. 23-621; Attorney General Pam Bondi acknowledges Biden’s ATF “targeting gun owners”; Cases that should be considered for filing motions to postpone;United States v. Ayala: Case No. 24-10462: case for a motion withdraw.
SCOTUS
On Feb. 14, SCOTUS announced that a conference would be held on Feb. 21, and Snope v. Brown and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island would be rescheduled for that date. Unfortunately, both cases have been postponed until the Feb. 28 (this coming Friday) conference date. Keep your fingers and toes crossed!
Lackey v. Stinny: No. 23-621: The ruling has implications for gun rights groups like the Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, NRA, and other plaintiffs who challenge anti-gun laws. If these groups obtain a preliminary injunction to block an unconstitutional law, but the case becomes moot—e.g., if the government amends the law to avoid a final ruling—they cannot recover attorney’s fees. You may remember the NYSRPA v. NYC, which was filed to challenge New York City’s gun ownership laws, specifically restrictions on transporting licensed firearms outside the home. It reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued a per curiam decision on April 27, 2020, declaring the case moot after the city and state amended the challenged laws.
Background: This is a case where Virginia law 42 U. S. C. §1983 was challenged by drivers who had their licenses suspended because they failed to pay court fines. In the District Court, the plaintiffs were granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the State of Virginia from enforcing the statute. Before the court case was decided, the Virginia legislature repealed the statute, rendering the case moot, and the state of Virginia refused to pay the plaintiffs’ attorney fees. Those plaintiffs then sued for the payment of their attorney fees. SCOTUS decided that winning a preliminary injunction does not qualify a party as a “prevailing party” entitled to attorney’s fees under 42 USC 1988 unless they secure a final judgment in their favor.
Trump Administration – Department of Justice
Attorney General Pam Bondi addressed concerns involving the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) during an interview on Fox News. She stated, “These people were targeting gun owners,” referring to the ATF, and emphasized, “Not gonna happen under this administration.” This was in the context of her firing of Pamela Hicks, the ATF’s chief legal counsel, on Feb. 20 (last Thursday), signaling a shift in policy or enforcement approach under her leadership.
As of this date, Bondi has filed motions to postpone and hold the cases in abeyance in two instances in which the Department of Justice (DOJ) has been challenged for its interpretation of federal firearms law. The Attorney General willreview the United States’ position in these litigations. As we wrote last week, Bondi has issued such motions in two cases:Colon v. BATFE 24-10897 and Williams v. Garland.
Some of the other cases that should be considered:
1. State of California v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (3:20-cv-06761)is a 2020 challenge to ATF’s ghost gun determinations by the State of California and Giffords. On April 26, 2024, BATFE and former Attorney General Merrick Garland filed a notice of Appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Since then, except for attorney change notices, nothing has occurred in this case
2. Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives: Bump-stock owners and advocates challenged the ATF’s 2018 rule classifying bump stocks—devices enabling semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly—as machine guns under the National Firearms Act (NFA). They argued the ATF exceeded its statutory authority. Outcome: The D.C. Circuit upheld the ATF rule 2019, denying a preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court declined to review the case in 2020, leaving the regulation intact at that level, though related bump-stock challenges persist elsewhere.
3.. State of Texas v. BATFE: Case #:2:2024-cv-00089: Texas and co-plaintiffs challenge the pistol brace regulation and other definitions under the Bipartisan Safe Communities Act of the Biden Administration.
4.. Reese v. BATFE: Case No. 23-30033:
The three-judge panel found that the federal law banning the sale of firearms to those between the ages of 18 and 20 years of age “not only served in that militia but were required to serve.” The Court concludes,
“Ultimately, the text of the Second Amendment includes eighteen-to-twenty-year-old individuals among “the people” whose right to keep and bear arms is protected.”
Court of Appeals
United States v. Ayala: Case No. 24-10462: The government appealed this decision to the Eleventh Circuit on February 14, 2024. As of Feb. 23, the appeal remains pending. The Eleventh Circuit docket shows no final ruling yet—briefing concluded in late 2024, but no opinion has been issued by this date, and Ayala’s dismissal stands for now unless overturned.
Background: Case No. 8:22-cr-00369: On Feb. 2, 2024, Judge Kathryn KimballMizelle, in the Middle District of Florida, a Donald Trump appointee, dismissed the indictment against Emmanuel Ayala, a truck driver charged with carrying a handgun in a post office under 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) and a related postal regulation. She ruled the ban unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, applying the Supreme Court’s Bruen test, finding no sufficient historical precedent for banning firearms in post offices, distinguishing them from “sensitive places” like courthouses or schools.
