By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: The U.S. Supreme Court is on summer recess. Florida: Eleventh Circuit: National Rifle Association et al. v. Commissioner, Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement: En Banc Brief Notice filed; Kristin Worth v. Bob Jacobson: Case #23-2248. As expected, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (D) filed a Petition for Rehearing or Rehearing en Banc on July 30. Pennsylvania: Suarez v. Evanchick: Multiple Pennsylvania laws requiring permits to open carry were declared unconstitutional; Texas: Suarez v. Evanchick: BATFE’s reclassification of Forced Reset Triggers was declared unconstitutional.
Circuit Court
Florida: Eleventh Circuit
National Rifle Association et al. v. Commissioner, Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement, Appeal # 21-12314-U: On June 24, the following notice was filed:
EN BANC BRIEFING NOTICE
In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Rahimi, No. 22-915, the parties are reminded to file their en banc briefs on the following issue:
“Is the statute unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution?”
The appellants’ en banc brief is due July 31. The appellee’s en banc brief is due Aug. 30, and any en banc reply brief is due Sept. 20. NO EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED.
Background: This case was filed in March 2018 after the passage of a Florida law banning the purchase of firearms for anyone younger than 21. The District Court upheld the ban, and on Aug. 17, 2021, the NRA appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Oral arguments were held on March 24, 2022. On March 9, 2023, the three-judge panel upheld the District Court order. A petition to hear the case en banc was initiated, and on July 14, 2023, the three-judge panel decision was vacated, and an en banc notice was filed.
Minnesota: Eighth Circuit
Kristin Worth v. Bob Jacobson: Case #23-2248. As expected, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (D) filed a Petition for Rehearing or Rehearing en Banc on July 30, 2024.
Background: This case was initially filed on June 7, 2021, two years before the SCOTUS decision in Bruen. The District Court, on March 31, 2023, granted the plaintiffs’ motion, holding that the Minnesota Right-to-Carry Ban for those between 18 and 21 was facially unconstitutional. That decision was then appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit by the state of Minnesota. Oral arguments were held on February 24, 2024, and a decision upholding the decision of the Circuit Court was announced on July 16, 2024.
District Court
Pennsylvania: Third Circuit
Suarez v. Evanchick: Case # 1:21-cv-00710-CCC: On July 25, the Firearms Policy Coalition announced that multiple Pennsylvania laws requiring permits to open carry were declared unconstitutional. The Court also declared the requirements for a License to Carry Firearms to open carry in a vehicle and during a state of emergency unconstitutional. On July 26, the Defendant Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Background: This case was initially filed on April 16, 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was filed due to Governor Thomas Wolf’s three emergency declarations since 2018. In addition, Wolf also vetoed House Bill 1747 (“HB 1747”), whichwould have lifted the carry ban under Section 6107, despite an express opportunity to change the State’s policy in this limited regard.
It wasn’t until July 1, 2022, that a pre-trial schedule was finally set. On Sept. 13, 2022, plaintiffs filed a Second Motion for Summary Judgment. On May 16, 2024, the proceedings were stayed pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s disposition of United States v. Rahimi.
Texas: Fifth Circuit
NAGR v. Garland: Case # 4:23-cv-00830-O: The Court, in a 64-page ruling, declared BATFE’s reclassification of Forced Reset Triggers (FRT) to be unconstitutional, not based on Second Amendment rights but on agency powers granted to the agency by-laws passed by Congress. Judge O’Connor writes:
“the Court concludes that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority by expanding definition of machinegun and subsequently classifying FRTs as machineguns.
Additionally, Judge O’Connor suggests that the ATF uses the Chevron defense concept.
“Upon closer examination, Defendants record-rule arguments are little more than a thinly veiled backdoor effort to import Chevron-style deference applies into this case. True, Defendants have “never claimed that Chevron deference applies in this case directly. But by limiting review to the administrative record, the functional result is the equivalent of Chevron deference. Following the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a court may not defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law— even an ambiguous law— given the APA’s requirement that “court must exercise independent judgment.”
No one would be surprised if the Justice Department appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Background: On Aug. 9, 2023, this lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas. It was filed to seek declaratory and injunctive relief to end BATFE’s efforts to misclassify Forced Reset Triggers as Machine guns under the National Firearms Act of 1934. On Aug. 30, 2023, Judge Reed O’Connor granted the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 17) to preserve the status quo until Sept. 27, 2023, or until such time that the Court rules on the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 22). The Defendants are enjoined from implementing the “ATF’s expanded definition of “machine-gun” against Plaintiffs Carey, Speegle and Wheeler.
