SCOTUS and 2A-Update

[Lawdog Dago Dom]

The 2A-Shy Supreme Court Has Another Key Gun Case Headed Their Way - Shooting News Weekly

[Blackwater 53393]

Perhaps if we flood the court with so many Second Amendment cases that there is no room for anything else, we can convince them to go to work and settle them once and for all!

[John Kloehr]

Not sure why Snope or Ocean State did not make the cut for this year's docket. My worry is it did not get the votes and a conservative justice is writing a dissent for not granting cert. Could also be there are other percolating cases the court is waiting on so there will be something the next year and lot's of cases will be GVRed with additional guidance.

[John Kloehr]

Snope and Ocean State are back on the conference schedule for this Friday, March 21st. Any action will be listed in the Order released the following Monday.

[John Kloehr]

Snope returns to conference this Thursday, April 17th.

Still no current scheduled conference for Ocean State.

B&L under discussion on the 25th.

[John Kloehr]

Ocean State joined Snope in conference yesterday. Any orders will be published Monday morning.

[John Kloehr]

If anyone knows another SCOTUS case or appeal I can track, I can easily add it to the 3 I am tracking. Let me know as there are likely several which are running out of circuit-level processes and I might not notice an appeal filing for SCOTUS cert.

[John Kloehr]

On 4/15/2025 at 4:52 PM, John Kloehr said:

Snope returns to conference this Thursday, April 17th.

Still no current scheduled conference for Ocean State.

B&L under discussion on the 25th.

No update on Snope or Ocean State.

 

Next update on the 28th for B&L

 

Will be watching for Duncan V Bonta filing for SCOTUS cert. Plaintiffs filed for stay of magazine ban, stay granted for 90 days. Stay will extend if  plaintiffs file for cert until SCOTUS makes a cert determination:

 

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67826263/94/virginia-duncan-v-rob-bonta/

 

[John Kloehr]

Did just catch this:

 

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/worth

 

Minnesota ruled young adult carry can not be banned under the 2nd. The state applied to SCOTUS for cert. As of this morning, cert denied. Young adults must be treated the same as anyone else for purposes of carry. This case is over.

[Blackwater 53393]

Every little bit helps!!  It’s the right decision and dismisses the idea that any adult must be “of a certain age” to exercise their rights!!  18 year olds are responsible for their actions and therefore entitled to exercise ALL the rights they naturally have!

[John Kloehr]

1 hour ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

Every little bit helps!!  It’s the right decision and dismisses the idea that any adult must be “of a certain age” to exercise their rights!!  18 year olds are responsible for their actions and therefore entitled to exercise ALL the rights they naturally have!

We can hope other courts take it as a message, except there really was no clear separate message. Denial of this cert was in a long list of denials in today's orders. Looks like SCOTUS did some housekeeping to get a lot of stuff off the docket.

 

If SCOTUS is waiting on other decisions to reach them, NAGR v Lamont is waiting for a decision in the 2nd circuit. Also waiting on the 2nd circuit is Grant v Lamont. These cases appear at first glance to be tracking each other and can likely be treated as a single case There are at least 15 active AW/Magazine ban cases in various courts, at least two cases are stayed pending other cases. Other than the two I found in the 2nd, I did not find any others just pending a final decision appealable to the Supreme Court. This count includes the two appeals listed earlier and the likely appeal of the 9th decision in Duncan V Bonta. If SCOTUS waits, the potential exists to decide three to maybe 5 cases in one ruling.

 

My thanks go out to Giffords for providing a very nice easy to review chart of all the 2A cases they are tracking:

 

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/litigation/second-amendment-courtwatch/

 

They could improve the chart by providing links to the various court dockets for each case.

Edited April 21, 2025 by John Kloehr

[John Kloehr]

B&L denied certiorari. This means states and localities can ban gun and ammunition sales on government property. The California law at issue does not ban gun shows, does prohibit transactions at a show.

[John Kloehr]

Since it will be filed by CRPA soon, here is an update on Duncan v Bonta:

 

 

[John Kloehr]

Adding another case to my tracking. Wolford v Lopez:

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1046.html

 

This case is a challenge to the Hawaii default carry law requiring the owner of a business to expressly permit carry rather than expressly deny it.

 

Of special note here is the Amici Brief filed by the US government in favor of granting cert:

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1046/357921/20250501150148754_24-1046-Cert-Amicus-US.pdf

 

 

[John Kloehr]

Orders:

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/042125zor_m648.pdf

 

Nothing to report. Will look at conference schedules over the next few days.

[John Kloehr]

Snope scheduled for conference 5/15. Snope tracking page:

https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/snope-v-brown/

 

Ocean State scheduled for conference 5/15. Tracking page:

https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/ocean-state-tactical-llc-v-rhode-island/

 

Duncan v Bonta appeal not yet filed with SCOTUS.

 

Wolford v Lopez responses due June 4, then expect conference schedule:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1046.html

There will only be 3 more conferences in this term after June 4th.

 

Calendar showing remaining conference days (in green):

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/2024TermCourtCalendar.pdf

There are 7 remaining scheduled conference days this term, after which all open cases will likely roll over to the next year.

 

Orders resulting from the previous conference are published the following Monday at 9:30 Eastern time, usually found here shortly after:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt/24

 

Also noting Smith and Wesson v Mexico may have a ruling in the next 4 to 6 weeks:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1141.html

 

 

 

 

Edited May 19, 2025 by John Kloehr
update url

[John Kloehr]

No update on any of the cases I am tracking.

 

Today's bulk of orders:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/051925zor_0pm1.pdf

 

There was also a misc. order today denying review of an extradition for an Indian national to face criminal charges in India.

 

Next conference day is Thursday, too soon to check if any of the cases will be scheduled for then.

Edited May 19, 2025 by John Kloehr

[John Kloehr]

Snope and Ocean State scheduled for 5/22 conference. Since the following Monday is Memorial Day, I expect any orders will be published on Tuesday, the 27th.

 

Nothing found regarding Duncan.

[John Kloehr]

No update on any of the cases I am tracking.

 

Today's bulk of orders:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/052725zor_p8k0.pdf

 

Next conference day is Thursday (5/29), too soon to check if any of the cases will be scheduled for then.

 

[John Kloehr]

Snope and Ocean State both scheduled for conference 5/29.

 

No update from CRPA on Duncan V Bonta appeal. The 9th Circuit's 90 day stay pending SCOTUS appeal expires July 9th, automatic extension of stay until SCOTUS determines certiorari if an appeal is filed, automatic further stay if SCOTUS grants certiorari.

 

My hope is still that SCOTUS is waiting on the Duncan appeal before granting certiorari to all three cases (with one or two going to arguments). If so, it may push these cases out to the 2025 session.

Edited May 27, 2025 by John Kloehr

[John Kloehr]

Ocean State and Snope denied cert:

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/060225zor_4f15.pdf

 

Dissent at the end of the orders. Looks like Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas would grant cert. Statement from Kavanaugh respecting the denial is relevant for context:

 

"

Although the Court today denies certiorari, a denial of certiorari does not mean that the Court agrees with a lower-court decision or that the issue is not worthy of review. The AR–15 issue was recently decided by the First Circuit and is currently being considered by several other Courts of Appeals.

 

...

 

Opinions from other Courts of Appeals should assist this Court’s ultimate decisionmaking on the AR–15 issue. Additional petitions for certiorari will likely be before this Court shortly and, in my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two.

"

 

In the mean time, magazine bans and "assault weapon" bans may continue.

[John Kloehr]

In a unanimous opinion authored by Kagan(!), SCOTUS held Mexico may not sue firearms manufacturers for cartel violence based on otherwise legal distribution and sales:

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1141_lkgn.pdf

 

Such suits are barred by the PLCAA.

Edited June 5, 2025 by John Kloehr

[Blackwater 53393]

Should have been a foregone conclusion!!

 

This case should NEVER HAVE BEEN FILED!!  Biden and company are responsible for wasting the court’s time and costing the defendants time and money, the latter of those being their fallback if the litigation failed.

[John Kloehr]

4 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

Should have been a foregone conclusion!!

 

This case should NEVER HAVE BEEN FILED!!  Biden and company are responsible for wasting the court’s time and costing the defendants time and money, the latter of those being their fallback if the litigation failed.

 

The SCOTUS ruling reverses the lower court decision and remands to the lower court. Hopefully the lawyers do get paid by the plaintiff (Mexico) as part of closing out on remand.

 

While not a SCOTUS case, Rare Breed did not include attorneys fees as part of the settlement. And that was a settlement, not a ruling.

Edited June 5, 2025 by John Kloehr

[John Kloehr]

An observation from a couple rulings.

 

In Garland v Cargill (bump stock ruling):

 

"

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting.
On October 1, 2017, a shooter opened fire from a hotel room overlooking an outdoor concert in Las Vegas, Nevada, in what would become the deadliest mass shooting in U. S. history. ... He did so by affixing bump stocks to commonly available, semiautomatic rifles.

 

"

 

And now in unanimously deciding Smith v Mexico, Kagan writes:

"

... Mexico here focuses on the manufacturers’ production of “military style” assault weapons, among which it includes AR–15 rifles, AK–47 rifles, and .50 caliber sniper rifles. ... But those products are both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers. (The AR–15 is the most popular rifle in the country...)

 

"

 

The first quote is in a dissent, but dissents can be used in future arguments in other cases. The second quote is in a ruling. This makes it more compelling. One argument might be it should be ignored as it is dicta, but the quote clearly calls out the legal nature of the product and is thus arguably part of the ruling as to liability under the PLCAA, thus not dicta. And thus compelling for the other AR-15 ban cases in lower courts. Both in the context of being legal products and in that they are common for legal purposes.

 

When a ban case does ultimately reach the  Supreme Court, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson will need to reconcile that future case with what they have already written.

Edited June 6, 2025 by John Kloehr
Make text bold

[John Kloehr]

No case number or tracking page at this time. New appeal (Rush v United States) out of the 7th district:

 

https://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1512068/rush-v-us-cert-petition.pdf

 

"

Question Presented:

 

Whether the Second Amendment secures the right to possess unregistered short-barreled rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes.

 

"

[John Kloehr]

SCOTUS extends deadline for Duncan v Bonta cert filing. Was going to be this week, CRPA extension request approved to 7/18.

 

Best explained on CRPA TV:

 

 

[John Kloehr]

While not a SCOTUS case, I want to note an amicus brief filed in the 7th Circuit, Harrel v Raoul. AWB ban case under appeal. This brief is filed by the US government(!):

 

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6708/attachments/original/1750089048/2025.06.13_083_USA_Amicus.pdf?1750089048

 

This case is still at the circuit level, a contender for SCOTUS cert after this circuit appeal is complete. It will come up soon if Duncan is denied cert.

 

From the Table of Contents:

 

"

I. The Act Violates The Second Amendment By Banning AR-15s And Other Firearms That Are In Common Use By Law-Abiding Citizens For Lawful Reasons.

A. Many of the banned firearms are “Arms” under the Second Amendment.

B. AR-15s and other firearms banned by the Act are in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful reasons.

C. As a complete ban on AR-15s and other firearms that are in common use, the Act violates the Second Amendment.

II. Text, History, And Precedent Confirm That A Legislature May Not Ban A Class Of Weapons On The Ground That The Weapons Are “Militaristic.”

A. The Second Amendment’s text does not exclude “militaristic” arms.

B. The Second Amendment’s history demonstrates that possessing at least certain “militaristic” weapons was a core part of the right to keep and bear arms.

C. Second Amendment-related precedent confirms that the government may not ban weapons on the ground that they are “militaristic.”

III. The Act Violates The Second Amendment By Banning The Possession Of Magazines And Other Firearm Attachments That Are In Common Use By Law-Abiding Citizens For Lawful Reasons.

 

"

Edited June 16, 2025 by John Kloehr
clarity, word order

[John Kloehr]

On 6/8/2025 at 12:21 PM, John Kloehr said:

No case number or tracking page at this time. New appeal (Rush v United States) out of the 7th district:

 

https://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1512068/rush-v-us-cert-petition.pdf

 

"

Question Presented:

 

Whether the Second Amendment secures the right to possess unregistered short-barreled rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes.

 

"

I missed on this based on news cycle. I learned about it on the 8th, cert was denied on the 6th. Just closing this one out.

 

Kudos to the Senate for incorporating the SHORT act into the BBB, hopefully survives the Senate, then the House. And DJT signs it.

[Dapper Dave]

I think we have a good shot this time. I only have one firearm with a threaded barrel and I haven't fired it in about two years, but the SHORRT act would allow some really fun guns out to play.

The next few weeks are going to be VERY interesting. 

[John Kloehr]

On 6/16/2025 at 5:23 PM, John Kloehr said:

SCOTUS extends deadline for Duncan v Bonta cert filing. Was going to be this week, CRPA extension request approved to 7/18.

 

Best explained on CRPA TV:

 

 

Now extended to 8/18:

 

On edit: The tone and language selection suggests the DOJ will file an Amicus Brief supporting the suit to overturn the LCM ban and encourage SCOTUS to take the case.

Edited July 16, 2025 by John Kloehr

[John Kloehr]

In the mean time, SAF files for cert in WVCDL v ATF (formerly Brown v ATF). Issue is purchase of firearms by 18-20 year old citizens. Current circuit split is 3 to 3:

 

https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Brown-cert-petition.pdf

 

[John Kloehr]

The next conference day is October 19th (first conference of the 2025 term). Any open or new petitions are not likely to be considered before then.

[John Kloehr]

On 7/31/2025 at 7:21 PM, John Kloehr said:

In the mean time, SAF files for cert in WVCDL v ATF (formerly Brown v ATF). Issue is purchase of firearms by 18-20 year old citizens. Current circuit split is 3 to 3:

 

https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Brown-cert-petition.pdf

 

Just to disambiguate...

 

FPC just filed a new suit also named Brown v ATF at this time. It is not a SCOTUS case, posting to record it as separate from the age restriction suit. This new suit challenges the remains of the NFA as to the items no longer subject to maker or transfer tax:

 

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70994240/1/brown-v-bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives/

 

I will not be tracking this new suit in this thread until it gets to SCOTUS, but FYI to keep them separate in your own minds.

 

[John Kloehr]

SAF/FPC file response brief in Paris V SAF. Case is originally from Pennsylvania. Question presented is if young adults can carry during a declared emergency. Circuit split on 2A rights for 18-20 year olds is 3-3.

 

SCOTUS case page:

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1329.html

 

State request for cert:

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1329/363927/20250626105144428_Paris v. SAF Cert Petition v.FINAL.pdf

 

SAF/FPC response:

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1329/369550/20250813111716177_24-1329 Brief for the Respondents.pdf