By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—Texas-Fifth Circuit—VanDerStok v. Garland: The Fifth Circuit court granted the Plaintiffs-Appellees motion for the issuance of the Mandate and the case returns to US District Court for the Northern District of Texas Illinois: State Supreme Court—Caulkins v. Pritzker: This case has proceeded through the state courts all the way to the Supreme Court of Illinois.
SCOTUS
Illinois: State Supreme Court—Caulkins v. Pritzker: On Aug. 11, the Supreme Court of Illinois filed their opinion. Chief Justice Mary Jane Theis and Justices P. Scott Neville, Jr., and Joy V. Cunningham concurred in the judgment and opinion. Justice Lisa Holder White dissented, with opinion, joined by Justice David K. Overstreet. Justice Mary K. O’Brien dissented, with opinion. The Court “reverse(d) the circuit court and enter judgment for defendants on the equal protection and special legislation claims. We express no opinion on the potential viability of plaintiffs’ waived claim concerning the second amendment.”
The plaintiffs have appealed to SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari on Nov. 9. 2023. Docket 23-510 and it is scheduled for a response due by Dec. 14.
Background: This case has proceeded through the state courts all the way to the Supreme Court of Illinois. In the circuit court of Macon County declaratory judgment was for the plaintiffs“on two claims that the restrictions are facially unconstitutional because the exemptions deny the “law-abiding public” equal protection (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 2) and constitute special legislation (id. art. IV , § 13) under the Illinois Constitution.” The case was then appealed by the State of Illinois to the Supreme Court of Illinois.
Several other cases that have filed for certiorari have response due in the rest of 2023: Hulbert v. Pope was distributed on Dec. 1, which is a question of qualified immunity for police and filming of police; Nichols v. Newsom on Dec. 18, question of carry permits, Cunningham v. USA, request for additional time for filling writ of certiorari on Dec 28.
U. S. Courts of Appeals
Texas: Fifth Circuit
VanDerStok v. Garland: On Nov. 16, the Plaintiffs-Appellees, the parts manufacturers in the lawsuit, filed a joint Motion for immediate issuance of the Mandate, asking the Circuit Court to send the case back to the District Court who is responsible for issuing the remedy for the manufacturers who are losing their businesses due to the ATF regulation. Four days later the Fifth Circuit granted their motion and requested the parties to meet and issue a joint report by Dec. 4, 2023. Therefore, Judge Reed O’Connor will be issuing an updated order. Hopefully, issuing the Mandate speeds up the process for the Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Background: This lawsuit against the BATFE’s new rule concerning the treatment of “receiver blanks, unfinished frames or receivers, or 80% frames or receivers” as firearms was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in August 2022. On June 30, Judge O’Connor issued an order VACATING the final rule. The Department of Justice (DOJ) appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On July 24 they DENIED DOJ’s motion to stay O’Connor’s Vacatur. DOJ then appealed to SCOTUS for a STAY of the Fifth Circuit’s order. On Aug. 8 SCOTUS in a 5-4 vote issued a stay of Judge O’Connor’s “global” vacatur that applied to all entities nationwide.
The plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a Preliminary Injunction against the Rule on Aug. 9 and 14 in the District Court. Judge O’Connor issued an order granting injunctive relief for the plaintiffs on September 14. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held oral arguments on Sept. 7 and on Oct. 2 issued another unpublished order that vacated the District Court order as to non-parties, but it Denied the DOJ motion to stay the District Court’s injunction that was issued on September 14. On October 5 DOJ appealed to SCOTUS to vacate the District Court’s September 14 injunction against the Rule as it applied to the original plaintiffs, Defense Distributed and BlackHawk Manufacturing.
On Nov. 9, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit enjoined the ATF Frames and Receiver rule. The court wrote, “The agency rule at issue here flouts clear statutory text and exceeds the legislatively-imposed limits on agency authority in the name of public policy. Because Congress has neither authorized the expansion of firearm regulation nor permitted the criminalization of previously lawful conduct, the proposed rule constitutes unlawful agency action, in direct contravention of the legislature’s will. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM IN PART and VACATE AND REMAND IN PART the judgment of the district court.”
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order that enjoined ATF from enforcing the regulation against Defense Distributed and BlackHawk Manufacturing and their customers. They vacated the District Court’s order of a Preliminary Injunction against ATF, since during trial the Fifth Circuit judges asked ATF if they were going to enforce the new regulations against the customers and ATF testified that they would not. This ruling allows the plaintiffs to stay in business and the customers to keep their purchased items. And then they remanded the case back to the District Court. It is important to note that the District Court must do something, as after their next order, the ultimate decision will be with SCOTUS, not the lower courts. On Sept. 14, SCOTUS wrote that the original District Court rulings are:
“Stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically.”
