Last updated March 21, 2022 .

The gun lobby won’t stop pushing its radical interpretation of the Second Amendment in the courts. But we have common sense and evidence on our side, and we’re not backing down.

Our litigation experts track gun safety cases moving through courts across the country to keep you up to date on the latest legal developments. Second Amendment Courtwatch is an in-depth resource on Second Amendment litigation, a fast-evolving area of constitutional law since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in DC v. Heller in 2008.

Our regular updates highlight legal victories for the gun violence prevention movement and detail the gun lobby’s dangerous litigation in courts across the country. We break down the latest developments in key gun policy cases making their way through the courts, tracking the status and deadlines of major cases. Courtwatch is an invaluable tool for those interested in filing an amicus brief, getting involved in a gun safety case, or reporting on gun laws and the Second Amendment.

MEDIA REQUESTS

Our experts can speak to the full spectrum of gun violence prevention issues. Have a question? Email us at media@giffords.org.

Contact

Tracking the Latest Cases

Our experts are closely monitoring NYSRPA v. Bruen, the most important Second Amendment case the Supreme Court has heard in over a decade. Among other cases, we are also monitoring two lawsuits where gun lobby–backed challengers are requesting review by the Supreme Court: Ass’n of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. Grewal, and Young v. Hawaii. Each of these cases has the potential to yield a radical Second Amendment ruling that seriously jeopardizes future gun violence prevention progress.

The Supreme Court hears its first major Second Amendment case in over a decade.

On April 26, 2021, the Supreme Court announced it would hear NYSRPA v. Bruen, its first major Second Amendment case since Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the Court. This case (previously known as Corlett or NYSRPA II) involves a challenge to a New York state law that requires New York residents to demonstrate “proper cause” for a concealed carry license. Since the Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, the justices have largely avoided cases implicating the Second Amendment. This is the first Second Amendment case the Court has taken since the appointment of Justice Barrett, who is likely to shift the balance against gun safety laws. In Bruen, the Court is expected to address for the first time the extent to which the Second Amendment guarantees a right to carry firearms in public. Oral arguments took place on November 3, 2021. For more information on Bruen, read our press release with a statement on the case from our litigation director, Hannah Shearer, or see coverage in the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, Mother Jones, and The Hill.

The California Attorney General’s Office appealed the district court’s ruling Miller v. Bonta, seeking to protect California’s assault weapons ban.

On June 4th, National Gun Violence Awareness Day, a federal judge found California’s decades-old assault weapons ban unconstitutional in Miller v. Bonta. Our State Policy Director, Ari Freilich told the New York Times the ruling is “alarming and wrong” and is “an insult to families across the nation, on today of all days, who have seen in the most painful way possible how dangerous and deadly assault weapons are.” For more information on the ruling, read our press release with a statement from our Executive Director, Robyn Thomas, or see coverage in The New York Times, The Guardian, and The Washington Post. And for additional legal analysis about this  dangerous decision read our piece in the Daily Journal by our Litigation Director, Hannah Shearer and Constitutional Litigation Fellow, Lisa Tu. The California AG’s appeal will give the Ninth Circuit an opportunity to correct the district court, and find the ban constitutional. On June 21st, a panel of Ninth Circuit judges issued a stay, which prevents the district court’s ruling from going into effect, and places the appeal on hold, pending the resolution of other related cases before the court.

An en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld California’s large-capacity magazine ban.

On November 30, 2021, the en banc Ninth Circuit upheld California’s prohibition against large-capacity magazines in Duncan v. Becerra, joining every other federal appeals court to consider the constitutionality of magazine restrictions. This decision reversed a previous outlier ruling by a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel. Giffords Law Center filed an amicus brief defending California’s law before the three-judge panel, and later submitted another amicus brief urging the Ninth Circuit to hear the case en banc.

An en banc panel of the Sixth Circuit heard a challenge to the ATF’s rule banning bump stocks.

On December 3, 2021, the en banc Sixth Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling finding that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives had properly classified bump stocks as machine guns, reversing a three-judge panel which previously found that the challengers were likely to succeed in their challenge to ATF’s rule. The en banc court was evenly split 8-8, affirming the district court ruling by default.

An en banc panel of the Fourth Circuit vacated a prior decision challenging the constitutionality of a law restricting handgun sales from licensed dealers to individuals 21 years of age and older.

In September 2021, a Fourth Circuit panel vacated as moot a prior decision which held that laws preventing firearms dealers from selling handguns to young adults under the age of 21 are unconstitutional. Giffords Law Center filed an amicus brief in the case (Hirschfield v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms) in February 2020, supporting the constitutionality of minimum age laws with evidence showing that young adults under 21 are disproportionately involved in violent crime and are at a higher risk of attempting suicide.

SPOTLIGHT

GUNS & DEMOCRACY

The use of guns to intimidate and threaten voters, elected officials, and peaceful demonstrators poses a serious threat to our democracy. We’ve gathered resources on the deadly connection between guns and extremism, and how to stop it.

Read More

Licensing & Background Checks

Maryland Shall Issue v. Hogan 

Challenge to Maryland Handgun Qualification Law (license-to-possess). (D. Md. No. 16-cv-03311; 4th Cir. No. 19-1469)

• Case Status: On 9/10/21, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit, disputing both the lower court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and a previous order denying in part Plaintiffs’ motion to strike one of the Defendants’ testimony. On 10/6/21, Appellants Maryland Shall Issue filed a motion to hold the case in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of NYSRPA v. Bruen.  On 10/14/21, Appellees filed their opposition to the motion for abeyance and Appellants filed a response. On 11/2/21, the court granted the motion for abeyance.
• On 8/12/21, the court issued a sealed memorandum opinion and order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denying Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. On 8/23/21, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a redacted version of the memorandum opinion, which the court granted and issued. In its memorandum opinion, the court upheld Maryland’s firearms licensing requirements after applying intermediate scrutiny. On 11/25/20, Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment. On 12/3/20, Everytown filed their amicus brief. On 1/27/21, Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike opinions of Defendants’ experts. On 1/28/21, Plaintiffs filed their cross motion for summary judgment. On 4/20/21, the court granted Defendants’ consent motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Defendants’ experts. On 5/6/21, Defendants submitted their reply in support of their motion to strike. On 7/27/21, the court issued a memorandum opinion denying Plaintiff’s motion to strike and granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to strike.
• Prior Proceedings: After the district court granted summary judgment to defendants, the 4th Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded. 4th Cir. held that the district court erred in holding that appellant Atlantic Guns lacked independent standing to bring a Second Amendment claim and third-party standing to challenge the HQL requirement on behalf of potential customers. Affirmed the district court’s decision that the individual Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue a facial vagueness challenge.

People v. Brown 

Challenge to Illinois FOID firearm licensing law, brought by criminal defendant. (Ill. Supreme Court No. 127201; White Cty. Cir. Ct.)

• Case Status:Docket available here. Case is fully briefed. Amicus briefs have been filed by the City of Chicago, Giffords Law Center, Everytown, Madison County, Gun Save Life, Inc., and Firearms Policy Foundation. Oral argument was held on 3/16/22. On remand, defendant reasserts her constitutional challenge to the FOID law under Illinois S.Ct. Rule 19, and this time does not assert a statutory challenge. There was a motion hearing on the constitutional issue on 7/7/20. On 4/26/21 the Circuit Court held that FOID was unconstitutional as applied to the defendant. 
• On remand, defendant reasserts her constitutional challenge to the FOID law under Illinois S.Ct. Rule 19, and this time does not assert a statutory challenge. There was a motion hearing on the constitutional issue on 7/7/20. On 4/26/21, the Circuit Court held that FOID was unconstitutional as applied to the defendant.
• Prior Proceedings: A different (now retired) trial court judge previously held FOID law violated Second Amendment as-applied to defendant who “possessed a gun, in her house, for the purpose of self-defense.” Also held it is impossible to comply with statutory requirement to have FOID card on person. Case was appealed and on 4/2/20, the Illinois S. Ct. held the trial court should not have reached the Second Amendment question in light of alternate holding and remanded for further proceedings. 

Guns Save Life, Inc. v. Raoul 

NRA-backed challenge to Illinois FOID firearm licensing law. (Ill. state court—Sangamon Cnty. Cir. Ct. No. 2019 CH 000180)

• Case Status: Docket available here. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss granted with prejudice. The stay was lifted on 4/30/20. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on 5/29/20; Plaintiffs filed their response and a motion for summary judgment on 7/15/20. Hearing was on 9/22/20. On 11/17/20, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On 12/1/20, Plaintiff filed a motion to continue motion for summary judgement. On 12/29/20, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgement. On 2/19/21, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On 4/7/21, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to Defendant’s motion. On 4/23/21, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. On 5/5/21, Defendant filed a notice of hearing. On 5/19/21, Plaintiff filed a subpoena for deposition. On 6/22/21, the court granted the joint motion for entry of a stay and amended case managemen

Basset v. Slatery

Challenge to Tennessee’s permitless carry law brought by individuals between the age of eighteen and twenty. (E.D. Tenn. No. 21-CV-00152)

• Case Status: Complaint filed on 4/22/21. Defendants have until 8/16/21 to answer the complaint. On 8/16/21, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On 8/25/21, Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for extension of time to file their response, which the Court granted on 8/27/21. On 9/13/21, Plaintiffs filed their response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On 9/20/21, the court granted Defendants’ unopposed motion for an extension of time to reply to Plaintiffs’ response; Defendants’ filed their response on 10/8/21.

Gun Owners of America v. Philadelphia 

Challenge to Philadelphia law prohibiting the creation of 3D printed firearms and components without a federal license. (Philadelphia County filed May 11, 2021; E.D. Pa. No. 21-cv-2630)

• Case Status: On 10/7/21, the court issued a memorandum and opinion ordering that Plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, the state court from which it was removed. Complaint filed 5/11/21. Removal to Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case no. 21-cv-2630) filed 6/10/21; motion for remand filed 6/16/21. On 6/17/21, Defendant answered the complaint. On 6/30/21, Defendant filed a response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. On 7/7/21, Plaintiffs filed their reply.

PRO BONO

Our pro bono partners generously volunteer their time and legal expertise, helping us fight the gun lobby in court and defend lifesaving gun laws. Visit our pro bono partner page to find out more about how to get involved.

Learn More

Guns in Public

NYSRPA v. Bruen (Cert Granted)

Challenges to New York concealed carry licensing law (relitigating Kachalsky). (S. Ct. No. 20-843; 2d Cir. No. 19-156)

• Case Status: Petition granted on 4/26/21 limited to the following question: Whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.Docket available here. On 5/7/21, Petitioners requested an extension of time for the merit briefs and the joint appendix for both parties. On 6/16/21, Petitioners requested another extension of time on behalf of both parties. Petitioners proposed their brief and joint appendix be due on 7/13/21, and Respondents’ brief due on 9/14/21. On 6/25/21, the court granted the extension of time.  On 7/13/21, Petitioners filed their brief, and the joint appendix was filed. Amicus briefs have been submitted by the Alabama Center for Liberty and Law, Professors of Second Amendment Law, joined by Weld County, Colorado, and the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Claremont Institutional Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, the Bay Colony Weapons Collectors, Inc., the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc., Italo-American Jurists and Attorneys, the National African American Gun Association, Inc., the Mountain States Legal Foundation’s Center to Keep and Bear Arms, George K. Young Jr, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Representative Claudia Tenney and 175 Additional Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, The Buckeye Institute, The DC Project Foundation, Patrick J. Charles, J. Joel Alicea, American Constitutional Rights Union, National Shooting Sports Foundation Inc., The Independent Institute, State of Arizona, et al., Governor of Texas, Law Enforcement Groups and Local Firearms Rights Groups, American Center for Law and Justice, The Liberal Gun Club and Commonwealth Second Amendment, California Rifle & Pistol Association and Incorporated and Second Amendment Law Center, Inc., Gun Owners of America, William English and the Center for Human Liberty, Second Amendment Foundation, et al., Lambert Henry, Center for Defense of Free Enterprise, The Cato Institute, The League for Sportsmen, Law Enforcement and Defense, Senator Ted Cruz, and 24 Other U.S. Senators, National Foundation for Gun Rights and National Association for Gun Rights, Black Guns Matter, Professors Robert Leider and Nelson Lund, and the Buckeye Firearms Association, Asian Pacific American Gun Owners Association, FPC American Victory Fund, Madison Society Foundation, Inc., The Rutherford Institute, The Goldwater Institute, The Firearms Policy Coalition and Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm, Independent Women’s Law Center, NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, California Gun RIghts Foundation, Second Amendment Law Professors, Crime Prevention Research Center, and Black Attorneys of Legal Aid, et al. On 9/1/21, the records from the Second Circuit and the N.D.N.Y. were requested and electronically filed. Between 9/13/21 and 9/22/21, amicus briefs were filed by J. Michael Luttig, Neal Goldfarb, League of Women Voters, Amnesty International, United States, Everytown, The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Giffords Law Center, States of California, et al., ACLU and NY Civil Liberties Union, Violence Policy Center, American Bar Association, Former Major City Policy Chiefs, Americans Against Gun Violence, United States Senators, et al., NAACP, Lambda Legal, City of new York, American Medical Association et al., Professors of History and Law, New York County Lawyers Association, Former National Security Officials filed, March for Our Lives, Brady, City of Chicago joined by 11 other cities, Citizens Crime Commission of NYC, the Partnership for NYC, Corpus Linguistics Professors and Experts, Presiding Bishop and President of the House of Deputies of the Episcopal Church, Social Scientists and Public Health Researchers, the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence and 35 other organizations, National League of Cities, Prosecutors Against Gun Violence, and John Elson. On 9/23/21, Criminal Legal Scholars filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief. On 9/14/21, Respondent Kevin Bruen filed his brief which was not accepted for filing on 9/15/21. On 9/21/21, the Solicitor General filed a motion for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument. On 10/12/21, the Court granted the Solicitor General’s motion. On 10/12/21, Criminal Legal Scholars’ motion for leave to file an amici brief out of time was granted. On 10/14/21, Petitioners filed their reply brief. On 10/18/21, the Court announced the time allotted for oral arguments: 35 minutes for Petitioners, 20 minutes for Respondents, and 15 minutes for the Acting Solicitor General. On 10/21/21, an amicus brief was submitted by Prosecutors Against Gun Violence. On 1/28/22, the Virginia Office of the Attorney General filed a letter reversing its position, arguing that New York’s handgun permit regime is irreconcilable with the Second Amendment.
• Certiorari Briefs: On 12/17/20, the Appellants filed a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. On 1/11/21, the Court granted a motion to extend the time to file a response which is now due on 2/22/21. On 1/21/21 and 1/22/21, amicus briefs were filed by Firearms Policy Coalition, Korte Enterprises LLC, the State of Missouri, and Law Enforcement Groups and State and Local Firearms Rights Groups. On 2/12/21, an amicus brief was filed by Neal Goldfarb in support of Respondents. On 2/22/21, Respondents filed their brief in opposition. On 3/10/21, Petitioners filed their reply brief. Distributed for conference on 4/23/21.
• Lower Court Outcome: The 2d Cir. affirmed the District Court ruling which dismissed the plaintiffs Section 1983 action alleging that NY’s proper cause requirement for concealed carry was unconstitutional. Mandate issued on 9/16/20. District court granted motion to dismiss.

Young v. Hawaii (Cert Stage)

Challenge to Hawaii open carry law. (S. Ct. No. 20-1639; 9th Cir. No. 12-17808)

• Case Status: Docket available here. On 5/11/21, the petition for writ of certiorari was filed. On 6/9/21, the Court extended the time to file a response; the response is now due 7/26/21. On 7/26/21, Respondents filed their brief in opposition. Amicus briefs have been filed by Hawaii Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation, Mountain States Legal Foundation Center to Keep and Bear Arms, Louisiana, Arizona, Montana, and Eighteen Other States, Gun Owners of America, Inc, joined by Gun Owners Foundation, Heller Foundation, Virginia Citizens Defense League, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Restoring Liberty Action Committee, and Hawaii Firearms Coalition. Case is set to be distributed for conference on 9/27/21. On 8/23/21, Petitioner filed their reply brief.
• Lower Court Outcome:Affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a challenge to Hawaii’s open carry licensing scheme on 3/24/21. Dissents by Judges O’Scannlain and R. Nelson. Mandate issued on 4/15/21. En banc oral argument was heard on 9/24/20 before Judges Thomas, O’Scannlain, McKeown, Wardlaw, W. Fletcher, Clifton, Bybee, Callahan, Ikuta, Friedland, and R. Nelson. Panel invalidated law; en banc court vacated panel decision.

Call, et al. v. Jones III, et al. (Held in Abeyance Pending NYSRPA v. Bruen)

Second Amendment challenge to Maryland concealed carry permit law and “good and substantial reason” requirement. (4th Cir. No. 21-1334; D. Md. No. 20-cv-03304)

• Case Status: On 3/26/21, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit in response to the order dismissing their complaint. On 5/10/21, the court ordered the case be held in abeyance pending Bruen.
• Lower Court Outcome: Complaint filed 11/13/20. On 12/7/20, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On 3/19/21, the court denied Everytown and Giffords Law Center’s motions for leave to file amicus briefs. 

Bennett v. Davis (Held in Abeyance Pending NYSRPA v. Bruen)

Second Amendment challenge to New Jersey good-cause concealed carry permit law. (D. N.J. No. 20-cv-15406)

• Case Status: Complaint filed 11/2/20. On 5/12/21, the court administratively terminated the case pending Bruen.

Greco v. City of New York  (Held in Abeyance Pending NYRSPA v. Bruen)

Second Amendment challenge to NYC implementation of New York good-cause concealed carry permit law. (S.D.N.Y. No. 20-cv-09265)

• Case Status: Complaint filed 11/4/2020. On 12/15/2020, the summons were issued to Defendants. On 1/5/21, Plaintiffs submitted their amended complaint with a jury demand, and on 2/19/21, Defendants answered the amended complaint. On 6/3/21, the court granted Defendants’ proposed protective order. On 6/28/21, the court granted an extension of time to complete discovery; fact discovery due 7/26/21; expert discovery due 9/8/21; status conference set for 9/24/21. On 8/4/21, the court granted parties’ joint letter motion to stay the case pending Bruen. The court directed parties to inform the court whether the stay should be lifted within two weeks of the decision in Bruen.

Wade v. University of Michigan 

Second Amendment challenge to Univ. of Michigan campus gun ban. (Mich. S. Ct. No. 156150)

• Case Status:Docket available here. State supreme court review granted 11/6/20 in this order. On 1/4/21, Appellant submitted their brief. On 1/27/21, an amicus brief was filed by Gun Owners of America, Inc and Gun Owners Foundation. Amicus briefs have been filed by Gun Owners of America, Inc, Gun Owners Foundation, Giffords Law Center, Brady, Team ENOUGH, and American Association of University Professors, Everytown , MFOL, Second Amendment professors, and the Firearms Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation. Oral argument was scheduled for October 2021. On 8/23/21, the court granted Defendant-Appellee’s motion to adjourn the case from the October 2021 oral argument session. On 12/28/21, the Chief Justice granted the stipulated motion to adjourn the cases from the January 2022 OA session.
• Lower Court Outcome: University rule upheld against preemption, Second Amendment challenge.

Flanagan v. Becerra and Nichols v. Newsom (Stayed Pending Young v. Hawaii)

Challenges to California open carry law. (Flanagan v. Becerra: 9th Cir. No. 18-55717. Nichols v. Newsom: 9th Cir. No. 14-55873.)

• Case Status: Flanagan and Nichols are stayed pending resolution of Young. 
• Lower Court Outcomes: Both challenges rejected below.

Livingston v. Ballard (Stayed Pending Young v. Hawaii)

Challenge to Hawaii’s open/concealed carry permitting laws. (D. Haw. No. 19-cv-157)

• Case Status: Stayed pending resolution of Young. On 3/25/21, Defendants filed a notice of significant developments given the 9th Cir. decision in Young and that Plaintiff-Appellant from Young announced they intend to seek Supreme Court review. On 4/12/21, the court recognized the en banc opinion in Young, and the case remains stayed and administratively closed pending the mandate in Young.

Yukutake v. Connors (Stayed Pending Young v. Hawaii)

Second Amendment challenge to Hawaii registration and permitting laws. (9th Cir. 21-16756; D. Hawaii No. 19-cv-578)

• Case Status: On 10/21/21, Defendant filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. On 11/30/21, the court granted Appellant an extension to file. On 2/22/22, Appellant filed its opening brief. On 3/11/22, Appellees request for an extension was granted; brief due 4/25/22.
• On 8/16/21, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied Defendants’ countermotion for summary judgment. The court held a telephonic status conference at Defendant’s request on 8/30/21 to discuss Defendant’s plan to file an appeal, request a stay from the court pending appeal, and seek amendment of the subject statutes in the Hawaii Legislature. On 8/30/21, the court extended the stay on entry of judgment until 9/22/21. On 8/31/21, Defendant filed a motion to stay pending appeal. Plaintiffs’ response is due on 9/13/21.
• Previously stayed pending resolution of Young. On 3/25/21, the district court lifted the stay in the case and administratively reopened the case. Status conference was held on 4/6/21. On 4/12/21, Defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint. On 4/28/21, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment and the hearing is scheduled for 6/28/21 at 10am. On 5/20/21, the court held a telephone conference and continued the jury trial from 7/13/21 to 2/23/22 at 8:30am. On 5/28/21, Defendant filed a counter motion for summary judgment. On 6/7/21, Plaintiffs filed a reply and opposition to Defendants’ counter motion for summary judgment. On 6/15/21, Everytown’s motion for leave to file an amicus brief was granted. Hearing held on 6/28/21 for Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion and Defendants’ counter motion for summary judgment. On 7/13/21, Plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authorities, notifying the court of the Fourth Circuit’s ruling in Hirschfield. On 8/4/21, the Court finished its hearing on parties’ pending summary judgment motions. The court intends to issue a written order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in whole and denying Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in whole. On 8/9/21, Defendant submitted a stipulation requesting the court to delay entry of its judgment for thirty days.

Worth, et al. v. Harrington, et al.

Facial and As-Applied Challenge to Minnesota’s Minimum Age and Public Carry Law. (D. Minn. No. 19-cv-578)

• Case Status: Complaint filed on 6/7/21. On 8/13/21, Defendant submitted its answer. On 9/23/21, Plaintiffs filed their statement of case and a report pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). Amended pleadings are due by 11/30/21. Fact discovery is due by 4/1/22. Case will be ready for trial by 10/5/22. On 11/15/21, Plaintiffs filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, which was amended on 11/16/21. On 11/19/21, the court granted Plaintiffs’ amended stipulation of dismissal with prejudice and dismissed Defendants Jon Lorge, Troy Wolberson, and Dan Starry. On 12/29/21, the case was reassigned to Judge Katherine M. Menendez. On 3/3/22, a settlement conference was set for 8/2/22.

LITIGATION

THE COURTS

Explore our work defending lifesaving gun laws in the courts and fighting to debunk the gun lobby’s dangerous arguments about the Second Amendment.

Read More

Hardware

Ass’n of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol v. Grewal (Cert Stage)

Second Amendment and Takings Clause challenge to New Jersey LCM possession ban. (S Ct. No. 20-1507; 3d Cir. No. 19-3142)

• Case Status: Docket available here.Cert petition was filed on 4/26/21. Response is due 5/28/21. Amicus briefs have been filed by California Rifle & Pistol Association with Gun Owners of California and Second Amendment Law Center, Mountain States Legal Foundation’s Center to Keep and Bear Arms, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and the State of Arizona. Set to be distributed for conference on 6/24/21. On 6/11, the Court requested a response, due 7/12/21. On 7/2/21, Respondent requested a thirty-day extension to file a response to the petition. On 8/11/21, Defendant submitted its brief in opposition. On 8/25/21, Petitioners filed their reply brief. The case was set to be distributed for conference on 9/27/21.
• Lower Court Outcome: The 3rd Cir. affirmed the District Court’s decision granting the State’s motion for summary judgement. On 9/15/20, appellants filed an en banc petition, supported by numerous amicus briefs. On 10/30/20, Appellants submitted their response to the petition for rehearing. On 11/25/20, the petition for rehearing en banc was denied. Judges Jordan, Hardiman, Bibas, Porter, Matey, and Phipps would have granted the petition. Mandate was issued on 12/3/20. District court denied plaintiff’s PI motion and 3d Circuit affirmed. District court then granted State’s motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiff’s cross-motion to stay pending resolution of NYSRPA. 

Duncan v. Bonta (Cert Stage)

Second Amendment, Takings Clause challenge to California LCM ban. (No. 21-1194; 9th Cir. No. 19-55376; S.D. Cal. No. 17-01017)

• Case Status: On 2/28/22, petition for a writ of certiorari was filed by Petitioner Duncan.
• Reversed and remanded. En banc, the Ninth Circuit upheld CA’s LCM ban with separate concurrences filed by Judges Graber, Berzon, and Hurwitz. Separate dissents by Judges Bumatay and VanDyke. On 12/20/21, the panel granted Appellees’ unopposed motion to partially stay issuance of the mandate. The mandate is partially stayed for 150 days from the date of this order. If Appellees file a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court during the period of the partial stay, the partial stay shall continue until final disposition by the U.S. Supreme Court.
• On 2/25/21, the case was ordered to be reheard en banc, and the panel opinion was vacated. Judges Owens and Bress did not participate in the deliberations or vote on the case. The 9th Cir. affirmed the district court’s decision finding California’s LCM ban unconstitutional on 8/14/20. On 8/28/20, appellant filed a petition for rehearing en banc, and appellees filed their response on 9/18/20. Numerous amicus briefs have been filed. On 3/22/21, the court granted Defendant-Appellant’s request for supplemental briefing due by 5/14/21; reply briefs due by 6/1/21. Amicus briefs have been filed by Gun Owners of America, National Shooting Sports Foundation (resubmitted after struck for being too long), the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the State of Arizona joined by 21 other states. Oral argument is scheduled for 6/22/21 at 9:30 a.m. PST. On 5/7/21, Appellees filed a letter notifying the court about Bruen and suggesting the court may want to hold Duncan in abeyance. Both parties have filed supplemental briefs. Oral argument heard on 6/22/21 before Judges Thomas, Graber, Paez, Berzon, Ikuta, Murguia, Watford, Hurwitz, R. Nelson, Bumatay, and Vandyke. On 7/12/21, Appellees notified the court of supplemental authorities: Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, for the proposition that the LCM ban does not survive heightened scrutiny, and Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, for the proposition that California’s LCM ban constitutes a taking and that “nuisance law may be invoked to take property without paying compensation only when something was declared a nuisance before the property was acquired.” On 7/27/21, Appellant disputed Appellees’ reliance on Americans for Prosperity Foundation and Cedar Point Nursery in their notice of supplemental authorities.
• Lower Court Outcome: District court granted permanent injunction, finding LCM regs unconstitutional in entirety; a week later he stayed part of ruling but possession ban remains enjoined. 9th Cir. previously affirmed PI order applying only to possession ban, by a 2–1 vote. 

Rupp v. Becerra (Held in Abeyance Pending Duncan v. Becerra)

Second Amendment, other challenges to California assault weapon restrictions and registration. (9th Cir. No. 19-56004)

• Case Status: The appeal is held in abeyance pending the resolution of the en banc proceedings in Duncan. The case is vacated until further order of the case. Judge Bumatay dissented from the order. Oral argument heard on 10/8/20 before Judge Hurwitz, Bress, and Bumatay. 
• Lower Court Outcome: District court granted State’s motion for summary judgment and upheld the assault weapon restrictions. 

Gun Owners of Amer. v. Garland (Cert Stage)

APA challenge to ATF rule banning bump stocks. (6th. Cir. No. 19-1298) 

• Case Status: On 3/3/22, a petition for writ of certiorari was filed by Appellant Gun Owners of America, Inc.
• Affirmed en banc. Held that relief to enjoin the Final Rule was not warranted and applied Chevron Deference to the ATF’s interpretation of § 5845(b), and recognized that “even without applying deference, the Final Rule provides the best interpretation of the § 5845(b).” On 1/26/22, the mandate was issued.
• Reversed and remanded. On 5/11/21, Appellees filed a petition for rehearing en banc. On 6/7/21, Appellants responded to the petition. On 6/25/21, the court granted the petition for rehearing en banc. Appellants’ brief is due on 7/26/21; Appellees’ brief is due on 8/25/21; Appellants’ reply brief due not later than 9/7/21. On 7/26/21, Appellants filed their supplemental brief. Amicus briefs have been filed by David Codrea, Owen Monroe, and Scott Heuman, and the National Rifle Association, the Cato Institute, FPC, and other state firearms associations and citizens defense leagues. En banc oral argument is set for 10/20/21 at 2pm EST. On 8/25/21, the Appellees filed their supplemental brief. On 9/7/21, the court granted Giffords Law Center, Brady, and Everytown’s motion for leave to file a brief as amici curiae, and Appellants also filed their supplemental brief.
• The Sixth Circuit disagreed with the lower court’s application of Chevron deference, held that the ATF’s Final Rule was not the best interpretation of § 5845(b), and found that Plaintiffs-Appellants were likely to prevail on the merits and their motion for an injunction should have been granted. Judges Batchelder wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Judge Murphy. Judge White wrote a dissent and found that Chevron could apply to laws with criminal applications. Appellants appeal the district court’s denial of their PI motion (1:18-cv-01429). Appeal is fully briefed, and 6th Cir. heard oral argument on 12/11/19. Audio here.

Modern Sportsman, et al. v. United States; companion case McCutchen v. United States

Takings Clause challenge to ATF rule banning bump stocks, brought by former bump stock sellers and individual owners seeking compensation. (Modern Sportsman, et al. v. United States: Fed. Cir. No. 20-1107. McCutchen v. United States: Fed. Cir. No. 20-1188)

• Case Status:  Affirmed. On 10/1/21, the Sixth Circuit issued its opinion affirming the government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and dismissing Appellants’ amended complaint, in a non-precedential opinion. On 11/15/21, Appellants filed a petition for rehearing en banc. Oral argument heard on 12/8/20 and submitted to panel: Wallach, Taranto, and Chen. Audio here. On 12/23/20, Appellants filed a motion to withdraw order on petition for rehearing en banc. On 12/29/20, an order was filed granting motion for the court to withdraw the order. On 2/2/22, the petition for rehearing en banc was denied. Mandate issued on 2/9/22.
• Lower Court Outcome: Lower court granted defense motion to dismiss on 10/23/20.

Miller v. Bonta

Second Amendment challenge to California’s assault weapons ban. (9th Cir. No. 21-55608, S.D. Cal. No. 19-cv-1537)

• Case Status: On 6/10/21, Defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit under an Emergency Motion to stay lower court action. On 6/15/21, Appellees files a response opposing the emergency motion. On 6/15/21, the State of Arizona joined by 21 other states filed a motion to become amicus curiae and submitted a brief for review. On 6/16/21, Appellants replied to Appellee’s response. On 6/21/21, the district court’s order and judgment were stayed pending resolution of Rupp v. Bonta, 9th Circuit No. 19-56004. The briefing schedule in this case is stayed until further order of the court. Amicus briefs have been filed by the State of Arizona and 21 other states, Glade F. Barlow, and James Murray.
• Lower Court Outcome:Held in favor of Plaintiffs, finding California’s assault weapons ban unconstitutional. Plaintiffs’ PI motion and def.’s partial motion to dismiss are fully briefed. On 12/14/20, Defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint. On 1/13/21, Defendants filed a motion seeking an order in limine to preclude or limit Plaintiffs’ proffered testimony at trial. On 1/27/21, both parties submitted trial briefs and their proposed findings of fact. Bench trial was held on 2/5/21. Plaintiffs filed an objection to the use of two exhibits: one by the Violence Policy Center and the other by Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Defendants’ response argues the deadline for objections has passed. Judge Benitez ordered Defendants to “adduce for the years 2020 and 2021: a. The total number of firearms sold in the state with background checks; b. If ascertainable, the total number of rifles, shotguns, semi-automatic pistols, and revolvers sold within the state with background checks; c. If ascertainable, the number of first-time buyers of a firearm in the state” by 3/15/21. On 3/15/21, Defendants responded to the order. On 5/11/21, the parties received notice of filing of the official transcript from the two days of trial on 2/3/21 and 2/5/21.

Renna v. Becerra 

Second Amendment challenge to 2020 amendments to California Unsafe Handgun Act. (S.D. Cal. No. 20-cv-02190)

• Case Status: Complaint filed 11/10/20, followed by opposed notice to relate case to Duncan, Miller and Rhode. On 1/5/21, summons were issued as to the first amended complaint. On 1/25/21, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On 2/15/21, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss. Status conference held on 3/12/21 in light of Duncan. On 4/23/21, the court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On 5/4/21, the court extended Defendants’ deadline to file an answer to the First Amended Complaint to 5/14/21. On 5/14/21, Defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint. On 7/21/21 the court entered a notice and order setting an early neutral evaluation for 9/7/21. The deadline to submit confidential briefs, file the joint discovery plan is set for 9/16/21. On 11/29/21, the court granted the parties’ joint motion to amend discovery schedule. Supplemental/rebuttal expert designations and disclosures due on 6/21/22. On 1/14/22, a status conference was held. On 2/16/22, Plaintiffs and Defendants filed a joint notice of voluntary dismissal as to the claims brought by Plaintiff Hannah Spousta.

Rainier Arms, et al. v. ATF 

Second Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act challenges to ATF’s regulatory guidance for pistol braces. (N.D. Tex., No. 21-cv-00116)

• Case Status: On 11/29/21, the case was administratively closed by the district court judge. On 12/27/21, the parties filed their joint status report. On 12/28/21, the court agreed with the parties that the case should remain stayed while Defendant responds to the comments from Defendant’s proposed rule on “Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces’”. The parties are ordered to file a joint status report on or before 3/28/22.
• On 4/30/21, Defendants notified the court about the President’s order that DoJ initiate rulemaking about pistol braces within 60 days on 4/7/21, and the parties are conferring over the announcement’s implication for the case. On 5/21/21, Defendants filed a consent motion to stay the case in order to “allow Defendants to undertake issuing the proposed rule.” On 5/24/21, the court granted the agreed motion to stay and vacated all pending deadlines. Parties filed their joint status report on 6/14/21, and on 6/15/21, the court agreed with the parties that the case should remain stayed pending public comment on Defendants’ proposed rule on “Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces.’” Parties are to file a joint status report on or before 9/21/21 indicating whether the case should remain stayed. On 9/21/21, Defendants filed a joint status report. On 9/28/21, the court agreed with the parties that the case should remain stayed while Defendant processes the comments from the Defendant’s proposed rule. Parties were ordered to file a joint status report by 12/27/21, indicating whether the stay should be lifted.

AMICUS BRIEFS

Time and again, courts have ruled that the Second Amendment is fully compatible with a wide range of gun safety laws. Giffords Law Center and our partners frequently draft and submit amicus curiae—or “friend of the court”—briefs in cases challenging lifesaving gun laws.

Learn More

Gun Access

Marshall v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms (Cert Stage)

Challenge to federal minimum age restriction. (No. 21-1155; 4th Cir. No. 19-2250)

• Case Status:Petition for cert was filed on 2/17/22, and the case was placed on the docket on 2/22/22. On 3/11/22, the government waived its right to file a response to the petition for cert, unless requested to do so by the Court.
• Vacated, reversed, and remanded. On 10/25/21, the court granted the petition for rehearing. On 10/26/21, the mandate was temporarily stayed pending ruling on petition for rehearing en banc. On 11/19/21, the court issued an order denying the motion for rehearing en banc. Mandate was issued on 11/29/21.
• A divided panel of the Fourth Circuit held that laws preventing firearms dealers from selling handguns to people under the age of 21 are unconstitutional. On 7/27/21, Prospective Intervenors Corey Fraser and Battlefield Arms filed a motion to intervene with a proposed complaint. On 8/9/21, Defendant filed its response in opposition to motion to intervene and cross-motion for vacatur. On 8/10/21, Prospective Plaintiff-Appellants filed notice of their intent to file a reply to Defendant’s response in opposition. On 8/17/21, Plaintiffs filed their response in opposition. On 8/23/21, Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiffs’ response. On 8/27/21, Defendants filed their petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. On 8/30/21, the court temporarily stayed the mandate pending the petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. On 9/3/21, amicus briefs were filed by Illinois et al, Virginia, and Maryland. On 9/8/21, the court granted motion for Brady, Everytown, Giffords Law Center, and March for Our Lives to file an amicus brief. On 9/22/21, the case was reopened and an opinion was published remanding the case to the district court with direction to dismiss as moot. Oral argument was heard on 10/30/20; Brady and Giffords Law Center participated. On 12/4/20, Giffords Law Center submitted supplemental authorities. On 3/11/21, AG Merrick Garland was substituted for Robert M. Wilkinson.
• Lower Court Outcome: District court granted defense motion to dismiss on 10/4/19. 

Jones v. Becerra

Challenge to CA minimum age law. (9th Cir. No. 20-56174; C.D. Cal. No. 19-CV-1226)

• Case Status: On 12/4/20, Appellants filed their opening brief and excerpts of record. The case is fully briefed. On 1/26/21, an amicus brief was filed by IL, CT, DE, DC, HI, MD, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NM, NY, OR, PA, RI, VE, VI, and WA. An amicus brief was also submitted by GLC, Brady, AFT and California Federation of Teachers. Everytown also submitted an amicus brief. On 1/28/21, NEA also submitted an amicus brief. On 3/26/21, parties were ordered to file supplemental briefing addressing 1) the original public meaning of “a well regulated militia,” “the right of the people,” and “shall not be infringed,” 2) how the tool of corpus linguistics can inform the original public meaning, and 3) how does the data yielded from corpus linguistics assist in the interpretation of the age-based restrictions under the Second Amendment; briefs due on 4/23/21. On 4/20/21, Appellants filed their supplemental brief. On 4/21/21, Appellees filed their supplemental brief. Motion by Neal Goldfarb for leave to file reply brief as amicus curiae was denied. Oral argument held in Pasadena on 5/12/21 at 9am before Nelson, Lee, and Stein (S.D.N.Y.), recording available, here. Appellees and Appellants have both filed notice of supplemental authorities, disagreeing about the precedential value of National Rifle Association v. Swearingen. On 7/21/21, Appellants filed notice of supplemental authorities relying on Hirschfield (4th Cir.). On 12/24/21, Appellees filed notice of supplemental authorities relying on Duncan (9th Cir.). On 12/29/21, Appellants disputed Appellees’ reliance on Duncan.
• Lower Court Outcome: On 11/3/20, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. On 11/6/20, Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal to the 9th Circuit.

Mitchell v. Atkins (Held in Abeyance Pending Jones v. Becerra)

Commerce clause challenge to WA law prohibiting sale of semiautomatic rifles to out-of-state residents, and Second Amendment challenge to minimum age provision. (9th Cir. No. 20-35827, W.D. Wash. No. 19-cv-05106)

• Case Status: Held in abeyance pending Jones v. Becerra. Case is fully briefed. Amicus briefs have been submitted by IL, CA, CT, DE, D.C., HI, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NM, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT, and VA, and Giffords Law Center and Brady, and Everytown. On 4/20/21, Appellees notified the court of Young which supports affirming the district court decision. On 5/17/21, Appellants submitted their reply brief. On 7/15/21, Appellants notified the court about the decision in Hirschfield. On 7/22/21, Appellee disagreed with Appellants’ reliance on Hirschfield (4th Cir.), recognizing it “represents an outlier that should not be followed.” 
• Lower Court Outcome: Granted Defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice on 8/31/20.

Lara v. Evanchick

Challenge to Pennsylvania’s Uniform Firearms Act and PA’s minimum age requirement laws under the Second Amendment. (3d Cir. No. 21-1832; W.D. Pa. No. 20-CV-01582)

• Case Status: As of 1/4/22, the case is being held in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s decision in NYRSPA v. Bruen. On 4/23/21, Appellant filed a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit. On 6/23/21, Appellants filed their brief with addendum and joint appendix. On 7/23/21, the court granted Appellee’s unopposed motion for an extension of time. On 9/22/21, Appellee filed their merits brief. On 9/29/21, Everytown and CA, CT, DL, DC, HI, MD, MA, MI, MN, NV, NJ, NY, NC, OR, RI, VT, VA, and WA filed amicus briefs in support of Appellee. On 10/1/21, Giffords Law Center and Ceasefire Pennsylvania Education Fund filed an amicus brief. On 10/13/21, Appellants filed their reply brief. On 11/2/21, Appellee filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental brief arguing recent developments have rendered the case moot. On 11/18/21, the case was referred to a merits panel. Case calendared for 1/20/2022.
• Lower Court Outcome: On 4/16/21, the district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice.

Williams v. Garland

As-applied challenge to 922(g)(1) brought by a person convicted of a DUI misdemeanor and given the mandatory minimum sentence, house arrest for ninety days. (3d Cir. No. 19-02694; E.D. Pa. No. 17-cv-02641)

• Case Status: Notice of appeal filed on 7/23/19. Following the Supreme Court’s denial of cert in Holloway v. AG, the court reinstated the briefing schedule. On 5/28/21, Appellant filed their brief and appendix. On 6/2/21, volumes II-V of the joining appendix were sealed. On 7/28/21, Appellees filed their opening brief.  On 8/18/21, Appellants filed their reply brief. Case calendared for 12/15/21; there will be no oral argument and the case will be submitted on the briefs.
• Lower Court Outcome: Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was denied, and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted on 4/1/19.

NRA v. Fla. AG 

Challenge to Florida minimum age law. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is fully briefed. (11th Cir. 21-12314;N.D. Fla. No. 18-cv-00137)

• Case Status: On 7/7/21, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Appellant’s brief is due on or before 8/17/21, and the appendix is due no later than 7 days from filing the Appellant’s brief. On 8/17/21, Appellants filed their reply brief. On 8/24/21, Appellants filed their appendix. On 8/24/21, NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund filed a motion to file an amicus brief. On 9/8/21, the court granted Appellee’s motion for an extension of time to file an amicus brief, which is now due on 10/18/21. On 10/19/21, Appellees filed their brief. On 10/25/21, Everytown and Giffords Law Center, Brady, Team ENOUGH, Orange Ribbons for Gun Safety, and MFOL Action Fund filed amicus briefs. On 11/8/21, Appellants filed their reply brief. Case set for argument in Miami on 3/24/22 at 3pm.
• Lower Court Outcome: On 6/24/21, the court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the claims with prejudice. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is fully briefed. On 5/1/20, the district court denied defense motion to dismiss the 2A claim. The trial set for 1/11/21 has been cancelled because of the pandemic.

MINIMUM AGE CHALLENGES PENDING IN DISTRICT COURTS

Reese v. DOJ 

Challenge to federal handgun minimum age law. (W.D. La. No. 20-cv-01438)

• Case Status: Complaint filed on 11/6/20. On 4/15/21, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and a motion for summary judgment. On 4/26/21, the court granted Giffords Law Center leave to file an amicus brief. On 5/6/21, Defendants filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and motion for summary judgment. On 5/10/21, the court granted Defendants’ motion to withdraw and ordered that Defendants respond to the amended complaint on or before 5/27/21. On 5/27/21, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and an alternative motion for summary judgment. On 6/3/21, Giffords Law Center filed an unopposed motion for leave to file an amicus brief, which was granted and the brief was filed on 6/4/21. On 6/14/21, the court granted Plaintiff Joseph Granich’s voluntary motion to dismiss his claims. On 6/17/21, Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment, a memorandum in opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and a response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On 7/16/21, Defendants filed their reply to Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. On 7/21/21, the court granted Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for an extension of time. On 8/13/21, Plaintiffs filed a reply in response to summary judgment.

Suarez, et al. v. Evanchick (Stayed Pending NYSRPA v. Bruen)

Challenge to Pennsylvania and Federal Misdemeanor Firearm Prohibitions brought by Binderup, Suarez, and Miller. (M.D. Pa. No. 21-cv-00710)

• Case Status: Complaint and motion for summary judgment filed on 4/16/21. On 4/22/21, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as premature and without prejudice. Case management conference set for 7/15/21. On 6/17/21, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On 7/15/21, Defendant filed his brief in support of his motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On 8/13/21, Plaintiffs filed their brief in opposition. On 8/17/21, Plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authority notifying the court of the Third Circuit’s decision in Drummond, et al. v. Robinson Township, et al. released on 8/17/21. On 8/19/21, the court granted Defendant’s motion for extension of time; response is now due 9/13/21. On 9/2/21, Defendant filed a reply brief. On 9/2/21, Defendant filed a reply brief. On 1/26/22, the court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss and entered an order permitting limited discovery and staying the case pending Bruen.

Meyer et al. v. Raoul et al.

Challenge to Illinois Minimum Age Law. (S.D. Ill. 21-cv-00518)

• Case Status: Complaint filed on 5/27/21. On 6/1/21, Judge Gilbert recused himself and the case was transferred to Judge Dugan. The court granted an extension of time for Defendant Raoul, whose response is now due on or before 8/12/21. On 7/29/21, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction. The court granted one Defendant’s motion for extension of time to file his response; the response is now due on or before 8/12/21. On 8/5/21 and 8/12/21, Defendants filed motions to dismiss; responses due by 9/10/21 and 9/16/21 respectively. On 9/13/21, Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to Defendants’ motions to dismiss and a cross motion for summary judgment. On 9/23/21, Defendants filed a reply to their motion to dismiss and filed a motion to continue motion for summary judgment. On 10/7/21, Plaintiffs filed their response in opposition. On 10/12/21, Defendants filed a joint motion to stay response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. On 10/15/21, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to Defendants’ joint motion. Scheduling conference set for 11/16/21 and jury trial set for 12/5/22. On 10/21/21, Judge Dugan issued an order of recusal. Final pretrial conference is set for 11/23/22 at 10 am with a jury trial set for 12/5/22 at 9 am. On 10/28/21, the court issued an order granting Defendants’ joint motion to stay response to Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment pursuant to FRCP 56(d). Motion for summary judgment is taken under advisement pending resolution of the pending motions to dismiss. Discovery is due by 8/29/22, and trial is set for 1/23/23. On 3/14/22, Plaintiffs submitted their supplement.

POST-HELLER LITIGATION

Our Post-Heller Litigation Summary rounds up all the most significant Second Amendment lawsuits and decisions since DC v. Heller.

Learn More

COVID-19 Lawsuits

Dark Storm Industries, et al. v. Hochul, et al. 

Challenge to Governor Cuomo’s Executive Order 202.6 ordering the closure of non-essential businesses, and the Order’s application to gun stores, which classifies as essential only firearm sales to law enforcement and military. (2d Cir., No. 20-2725; N.D.N.Y., No. 20-CV-360)

• Case Status: On 8/7/20, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal seeking review by the 2nd Circuit, who was notified on 8/14/20. Appellants filed their brief, two volumes of appendices, and a special appendix. Appellees’ brief is due 2/19/21. On 9/3/21, the court ordered Appellants to submit a supplemental brief addressing Appellees’ claim that the appeal is moot. On 9/7/21, Kathy C. Hochul was substituted for Cuomo.
• On 12/7/20, the appeal was dismissed for Appellants’ failure to file their brief and appendix, and Appellants moved to reinstate the appeal on 12/19/20. On 12/28/20, the court granted the motion to reinstate the appeal. On 3/29/21, Appellees filed their brief and submitted a request for oral argument. As of 4/9/21, both parties have filed their oral argument statement. Case set for oral argument on 9/21/21.
• Lower Court Outcome: On 7/8/20, the judge granted summary judgment for Defendants.

McDougall v. Ventura County; companion case Brandy, et al. v. Villanueva, et al. (En Banc)

Challenge to California, Ventura, and Los Angeles Counties’ COVID-related emergency orders, including Second Amendment and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 challenges to gun store closures. (McDougall v. Ventura County: 9th Cir., No. 20-56220; C.D. Cal., No. 20-CV-2927. Brandy, et al. v. Villanueva, et al.: C.D. Cal., No. 20-CV-02874.) 

• Case Status: En banc oral argument set for the week of 6/21/22.
• Reversed. The panel reversed the district court’s order, which dismissed the claim for failure to state a claim. The panel found the Ventura County COVID-19 regulation burdened the core of the Second Amendment, warranting strict scrutiny. The panel concluded that the regulation could not survive any form of heightened scrutiny. On 2/22/22, a judge of the Ninth Circuit called for a vote to determine whether the case should be reheard en banc. On 1/14/21, Appellants were granted an extension of time to file their Opening Brief. On 3/5/21, Appellants filed their opening brief; Appellees reply is now due on 4/5/21. On 4/6/21, Appellees filed their answering brief. On 4/26/21, Appellants filed their reply brief. On 10/7/21, Appellant filed a motion to substitute a party. Oral argument was heard on 10/18/21 before Kleinfeld, Nelson, and Vandyke.
• Lower Court Outcome: For McDougall: on 10/21/20, Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted, and Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice. For Brandy: on 10/1/20, Defendants’ motion for judgement on the pleadings was granted and the Plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed with prejudice.

McCarthy, et al. v. Baker, et al. 

Challenge to Governor Baker’s Order No. 13, which orders the closure of all non-essential businesses, and does not provide an exception for firearms dealers. (D. Mass., No. 20-CV-10701)

• Case Status: On 5/7/20, the court granted a preliminary injunction of Governor Baker’s Order as applied to gun stores. On 6/8/20, the State filed a notice that the Governor rescinded Order No. 13 in light of “sustained trend of improvement in public health data.” On 9/23/20, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. On 10/19/20, Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. Hearing on all pending motions occurred on 12/17/2020. Plaintiffs filed a supplemental memorandum in support of their motion for summary judgment addressing organizational standing. On 7/1/21, Defendants filed supplemental authorities showing that the State of Massachusetts’ state of emergency order ended on 6/15/21. On 8/31/21, Defendants filed supplemental authorities citing the First Circuit’s decision in Boston Bit Labs, Inc. v. Baker, to rebut Plaintiffs’ voluntary cessation arguments.

GET THE FACTS

Gun violence is a complex problem, and while there’s no one-size-fits-all solution, we must act. Our reports bring you the latest cutting-edge research and analysis about strategies to end our country’s gun violence crisis at every level.

Learn More

Commerce Clause

Mitchell v. Atkins 

Commerce clause challenge to WA law prohibiting sale of semiautomatic rifles to out-of-state residents, and Second Amendment challenge to minimum age provision. (9th Cir. No. 20-35827, W.D. Wash. No. 19-cv-05106)

• Case Status: Held in abeyance pending Jones v. Becerra. Case is fully briefed. Amicus briefs have been submitted by IL, CA, CT, DE, D.C., HI, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NM, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT, and VA, and Giffords Law Center and Brady, and Everytown. On 3/9/21, Appellants’ optional reply brief is now due on 5/17/21. On 4/20/21, Appellees notified the court of Young which supports affirming the district court decision. On 5/17/21, Appellants submitted their reply brief. On 7/15/21, Appellants notified the court about the decision in Hirschfield. On 7/22/21, Appellee disagreed with Appellants’ reliance on Hirschfield (4th Cir.), recognizing it “represents an outlier that should not be followed.”
• Lower Court Outcome: Granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice on 8/31/20.

Rhode v. Rodriguez (previously Rhode v. Becerra)

Commerce clause and Second Amendment challenge to CA ammunition background checks law. (9th Cir. No. 20-55437)

• Case Status: Held in abeyance pending Duncan. Case fully briefed and on 10/14, parties filed supplemental briefs addressing historical evidence in response to district court’s finding that “an ammunition background check has no historical pedigree.” Oral argument held on 11/9/20 before Watford, Parker (visiting judge) and Bumatay. On 11/16/20, parties directed to file supplemental briefs addressing constitutionality of the Basic Check. Appellees submitted their supplemental brief on 12/16/20; Appellants submitted their supplemental brief on 1/15/21.
• Lower Court Outcome: Judge Benitez granted PI on 4/23 (S.D. Cal. No. 18-cv-00802).

SPOTLIGHT

GUN LAW SCORECARD

The data is clear: states with stronger gun laws have less gun violence. See how your state compares in our annual ranking.

Read More

Litigation against the Gun Industry

Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms Int’l, LLC 

Lawsuit against manufacturers of the assault rifle used at Sandy Hook. (Conn. Sup. Ct. UWY CV15-6050025)

• Case Status: Docket available here. On 2/15/22, a notice of settlement and request for suspension of scheduling deadlines was filed. On 7/29/20, case was stayed pending bankruptcy proceedings for Remington Outdoor Company, Inc. (20-81688-11) and Remington Arms Company, LLC. (20-81692-11). On 4/21/21, the court requested an update on the bankruptcy proceedings. If the case remains in bankruptcy status, an updated affidavit must be filed on or before 5/21/21 or the case will be dismissed. If the case is no longer in bankruptcy, a request for status conference must be filed on or before 5/21/21. On 6/22/21, Plaintiffs’ gave notice of filing bankruptcy court document preservation order in Remington Outdoor Company, Inc. et al., at No. 20-81688-CRJ-11, which concerns the preservation of evidence relevant to this case for discovery purposes. On 7/2/21, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel. The court will hear arguments on the motion to strike on 7/26/21 and the motion for summary judgment on 5/25/22. On 7/16/21, Defendants filed their reply in support of their motion to strike Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. On 7/22/21, Defendant Remington filed a motion for a protective order regarding corporate designee deposition notices. On 8/13/21, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file unredacted pleading under seal to give Remington “the opportunity to argue for sealing. It is the plaintiffs’ position that these records should be public.” On 10/18/21, Plaintiffs filed a request for Remington to revise its special defenses to Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint. On 10/29/21, the court denied Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file an appeal. On 11/17/21, Defendant Remington filed its answer and asserted special defenses that Plaintiffs claims were barred in whole or part by the First Amendment, the Connecticut Constitution, the CUTPA’s alleged unconstitutionality, the PLCAA, SoL in the CUTPA, and alleging that Adam Lanza was a superseding cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries. An extension for fact discovery was granted; discovery due on 1/17/22. On 2/2/22, the court granted an order extending the deadlines two weeks.
• Lower Court Outcome: CT Supreme Court reinstated plaintiffs’ unfair trade practices (CUTPA) claim, interpreting federal law (PLCAA). SCOTUS denied cert on 11/12/19.

City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson, et al. 

City lawsuit against manufacturers for crime externalities resulting from firearms manufacture and distribution. (Ind. Super. Ct. 45D01-1211-CT-000233)

• Case Status: Docket available here. Plaintiffs currently proceeding in discovery in state trial court. On 5/23/19, an Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss. Indiana Supreme Court denied review on 11/26/19. On 3/26/21, an e-filing appearance was filed on behalf of Defendant. On 5/7/21, the court granted the withdrawal of Plaintiff’s attorneys. On 5/20/21, Defendants filed a motion to sequence discovery and a motion for hearing. On 5/27/21, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel and a motion for hearing. On 6/4/21, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants’ motion to sequence discovery. A hearing on all pending motions is scheduled for 9/8/21 at 2:30pm. On 6/11/21, Defendants filed a joint response to Plaintiff’s motion to compel. On 9/8/21, the court held a hearing on a motion to compel discovery. On 9/9/21, the court granted the motion to compel the City of Gary Indiana to respond to the discovery requests. On 3/2/22, the court held a hearing on the motion to compel discovery. On 3/3/22, the court issued an order on the pending motion to quash and motion to compel and outlined the five narrowed areas of discovery scope.

Parsons, et al. v. Colt’s Manufacturing, et al. 

Wrongful death lawsuit brought by family of Las Vegas victim against manufacturers, alleging defective design foreseeably led to conversion of semiautomatic weapons. (D. Nev. 19-CV-1189)

• Case Status: Remand case to state court from which it was removed on 2/2/22. On 4/10, the court issued an order allowing plaintiffs’ wrongful death claim to move forward, holding that it is not barred by PLCAA. The Court granted a stay until the Nevada SC responds to the amended certifying question. On 7/20, the court denied defendants’ motion for reconsideration of their motion to dismiss. On 7/30, the defendants’ moved for motion for certificate of appealability seeking certification for an interlocutory appeal. On 1/15/21, the judge ordered the Plaintiff to show cause as to why this action should not be remanded to state court, due on 2/16/21. On 2/8/21, the judge signed an order granting parties’ joint stipulation to extend deadlines pending the certifying of questions by the Supreme Court of Nevada. On 2/18/21, the judge denied without prejudice Defendants’ motion to certify orders in order to prevent Defendants from pursuing an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit. On 12/13/21, the NV Supreme Court answered the certified questions in part, holding that the allegation of illegality does not allow the parents’ wrongful death and negligence per se claims to proceed, despite the immunity that NRS 41.131(1) declares. NRS 41.131 provides the gun manufacturers and distributors immunity from the claims asserted against them under NV law. On 12/16/21, Defendant filed a response to show cause why the case should be remanded upon reconsideration.

Gustafson v. Springfield 

Reversed dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims and found the PLCAA unconstitutional. (207 WDA 2019)

• Case Status: Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard en banc oral argument on 8/24/21. Reversed, decision issued on 9/28 dismissing plaintiffs’ claims and found the PLCAA unconstitutional.

Leyva v. Braziel 

Lawsuit brought by family members of two victims of the Odessa-Midland shooting against the individual who supplied the firearm illegally and against Anderson Manufacturing. (A-20-08-0905-CV)

• Case Status: Docket available here. Complaint filed on 8/28/20, and Defendants have answered the complaint. On 11/16/20, Plaintiffs filed their second amended petition. On 12/3/20, Defendants answered the amended petition. On 12/31/20 and 1/5/21, Defendants separately filed two different motions to designate responsible third parties and moved for a motion to dismiss. On 2/21/21, the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. On 4/6/21, Defendants answered a Petition in Intervention. On 4/15/21, Defendants answered an Intervenor’s Second Amended Petition. On 7/12/21, Defendants filed their amended answer to various Intervenors’ petitions. On 7/14/21, a party moved for summary judgment. On 8/3/21, Defendant filed an opposed motion to stay discovery, which the court granted on 9/8/21. On 9/14/21 and 9/16/21, Plaintiff and Intervenor filed motions for a continuance. On 9/14/21, Defendants filed their responses to the amended petitions. Hearing set for 9/23/21. On 9/17/21, the judge issued an order for continuance. On 9/22/21, a party filed a motion for summary judgment, and the court held a hearing on the motion on 9/23/21. On 9/23/21, the court received notice of the United States’ acknowledgement of constitutional challenge and notice of potential participation. On 10/8/21, Defendants filed their answer to Plaintiffs’ fourth amended petition. On 11/15/21, a motion to intervene was filed. On 11/15/21, the United States filed a brief in support of the constitutionality of the PLCAA. On 11/19/21, Plaintiffs and intervenor filed a response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Hearing held on 12/2/21 on the pending motion to dismiss. On 11/29/21, Defendant presumably filed for bankruptcy.

Affirmative Challenges

State v. City of Weston 

Challenge to Florida’s preemption statute which limits local regulation in the field of firearms. (SC21-918; Fla. Dist. Ct. App. No. 1D19-2819)

• Case Status:Docket available here. On 6/24/21, Petitioners filed their joint brief on jurisdiction. On 8/2/21, Respondents filed their brief on jurisdiction. On 9/23/21, Florida Association of Counties filed an amicus brief. On 10/1/21, Giffords Law Center filed an amicus brief with Brady, Equality Florida Institute, and League of Women Voters of Florida. On 10/1/21, an extension of time was granted for Petitioner Nicole to file her merits brief; now due on 11/15/21. On 11/15/21, Plaintiffs filed their joint initial brief. On 11/22/21, motions for leave to file amici briefs have been filed. On 11/24/21, Giffords Law Center filed an amicus brief with Brady, Equality Florida Institute, and League of Women Voters of Florida. On 2/14/22, Respondents’ merits brief was submitted. On 2/24/22, amicus briefs were filed by the NRA and Florida Carry, Inc in support of Respondents.
• Lower Court Outcome: Reversed, upholding Florida’s preemption statute, including civil penalties–invalidated by the trial court–for legislators who knowingly pass preempted laws. On 1/2/20, Giffords Law Center filed an amicus brief in support of Plaintiff. On 5/17/21, the court denied Appellee’s motion for certification of questions of great public importance. On 6/7/21, the mandate was issued. On 6/16/21, the court received notice of discretionary jurisdiction and review was sent to the Florida Supreme Court. On 9/28/21, the record was sent to the Supreme Court. Trial court invalidated Florida’s preemption statute.

City of St. Louis & St. Louis County v. Missouri, et al. 

Supremacy Clause challenge to Missouri’s nullification law. (SC 99290; Missouri Cir. Ct. 21AC-CC00237)

• Case Status:Docket available here. Complaint filed on 6/21/21. On 6/25/21, Plaintiff filed a joint motion for continuance. On 7/15/21, Plaintiff filed an amended petition. On 7/26/21, Defendants filed their answer. On 8/27/21, Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief was denied. On 9/7/21, a notice of appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court was filed. An amicus brief has been filed by the United States in support of Appellants. On 12/22/21, Defendant filed a motion for expedited argument. On 12/30/21, the court granted Appellants motion and set oral argument for 2/7/22. Respondents brief is due on or before 1/28/22. Case argued and submitted on 2/7/22.

SPOTLIGHT

DEMANDING ACCOUNTABILITY

A joint effort by our country’s premier gun violence prevention organizations, the Firearms Accountability Counsel Taskforce works with the nation’s preeminent law firms to challenge the gun lobby in court and protect Americans’ most fundamental freedom—the right to live.

Learn More

RELATED

The Second Amendment

Time and again, courts across the nation have affirmed that gun safety laws are constitutional.

The Supreme Court

Our nation’s highest court has consistently recognized that the Second Amendment is compatible with strong firearm regulations.

Appellate Courts

The Supreme Court lets lower court victories stand—for now.