By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—No conference dates have been scheduled for Snope v. Brown and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island. Antoyuk v. James, certiorari denied; Worth v. Jacobson: Case # 23-2248 awaiting a decision on apossible appeal to SCOTUS; Senate approves John Sauer as Solicitor General: Duncan v. Bonta, Case #: 23-55805.new tactic by CRPA; Christian v. James: Case No: 22-2987: The Christian v. James case from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Maine: First Circuit: Beckwith v. Frey: Case No: 25-1160: injunction remains; Maryland: Fourth Circuit
National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., v. Brown; Case # 1:25-cv-01115-RDB: new case filed; Young v. Ott: Case #3:24-cv-00274: is a case about 18-to-20-year-olds and their gun rights being brought in Pennsylvania; Illinois: Lake County Circuit Court: Judge Jorge L. Ortiz: Roberts v. Smith & Wesson: The lawsuit involves survivors and families of victims of the Highland Park shooting suing Smith & Wesson, the manufacturer of the M&P 15 rifle—an AR-15-style firearm—used by the shooter, Robert Crimo III.
SCOTUS conferences through the end of the term
No conference dates have been scheduled for Snope v. Brown and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island.
For the rest of the 2024-2025 term, the scheduled conference dates are April 17 and 24; May 1, 14, 21, 28; and June 4, 11, 18, and 25.The Court did not hold a conference last week, so the next orders list isn’t expected after this Thursday’s conference.
Antoyuk v. James: Second Appeal to SCOTUS: Case No. 24-795: Certiorari denied. This case was docketed for January 27, 2025, and March 12, 2025. On April 7, the Supreme Court denied certiorari, declining to review the Second Circuit’s latest ruling at this interlocutory stage (before a final judgment). This left the CCIA in effect, and the case is ongoing in lower courts for further proceedings, such as a trial on the merits.
Background: The case began in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, where Judge Glenn Suddaby issued a preliminary injunction in 2022 blocking parts of the CCIA. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals “stayed” this injunction in December 2022, allowing the law to remain in effect. In December 2023, the Second Circuit largely upheld the CCIA, finding most provisions constitutional. However, it struck down some restrictions (e.g., bans on private property open to the public without explicit consent).
The case was then appealed to SCOTUS, and on July 2, 2024, the Second Circuit’s action was vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of US v. Rahimi. The Second Circuit reevaluated and concluded that its prior ruling was accurate. The plaintiffs re-petitioned SCOTUS on March 12; it was listed for the conference on March 28, and on April 7, the petition was denied certiorari. Most legal scholars agree that the denial of certiorari was because the lower court had not reached a final decision. The following amicus curiae have been filed: Peace Officers Research Association of California, Foundation for Moral Law, Second Amendment Law Center, Project 21, National Rifle Association of America, and New York State Senator Robert G. Orti (Senate Minority Leader).
Other certiorari appeals
Minnesota: Eighth Circuit
Worth v. Jacobson: Case # 23-2248: Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has asked the United States Supreme Court to hear its Worth v. Jacobson case, agreeing with the State of Minnesota that the Court should take up the State’s petition to affirm FPC’s victory below and eliminate unconstitutional age-based bans across the country. FPC’s Supreme Court brief and the Eighth Circuit’s unanimous decision in favor of FPC and its co-plaintiffs can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/worth.
Trump Administration extension requests on cases initiated under the Biden administration
United States v. Missouri: No. 24-795:The federal government filed a second consecutive last-minute extension request on April 11, 2025.
United States v. Daniels: The federal government filed an extension as the time to file a writ of certiorari expired on April 7.
The U.S. Senate approved John Sauer as Solicitor General.
John Sauer was confirmed in a 52-45 vote on April 7, as the Solicitor General of the United States. The Solicitor General oversees all government litigation, deciding and implementing the administration’s strategy in pursuing cases that primarily go before SCOTUS. He holds a significant position in the federal government and is highly respected within the judicial branch. The United States Supreme Court pays close attention to the Solicitor General.
As Mark W. Smith explains in his latest video, the Solicitor General is ultimately responsible for making strategic decisions regarding litigation, legal strategy, and legal theory related to the cases presented to SCOTUS on behalf of the government. He is often referred to as the 10th justice. Lawyers and others involved in the American judicial system view the Solicitor General as a vital cog in the operation of the Department of Justice.
Sauer is an exceptional lawyer. He is a former federal prosecutor and served as the Solicitor General of Missouri. He clerked for former Justice Antonin Scalia, Heller’s ultimate originalist and author.
He successfully represented Donald Trump and was the lawyer who argued in the U.S. Supreme Court against Jack Smith, the former special prosecutor appointed by Biden’s Attorney General Merrick Garland. He won that case and established President Trump’s presidential immunity from many of the events associated with January 6. That argument was a significant victory that curtailed Jack Smith’s inquiries during the summer of 2024, just before the election.
Court of Appeals
California: Ninth Circuit
Duncan v. Bonta, Case #: 23-55805. When I wrote the Background information on this case in the Grassroots Judicial Report dated March 26, 2025, I suggested that CRPA will appeal to SCOTUS. However, at 3:15 PM EDT on April 8, 2025, Chuck Michel, CRPA President and lead attorney, tweeted the following: “We have just filed a motion to stay the mandate in Duncan v. Bonta. Without getting too into the weeds, the basic goal here is to protect “freedom week” and grandfathered magazines while we seek cert from the Supreme Court. Since 2019, magazines possessed before the complete ban law and, as a result of Freedom Week, have been shielded from enforcement of the general ban by an order from Judge Benitez. Mandate issuing would reverse that order, and possessing such magazines would no longer be legal. Thousands of law-abiding Californians would be turned into criminals.
“The State did not oppose this motion, so we expect and hope it will be granted. Then, our fate relies on the Supreme Court doing the right thing and reversing the en banc majority’s erroneous ruling.”
On April 10, Michel tweeted the following:
“Our motion to stay the mandate in Duncan v. Bonta was granted. That means magazines possessed as a result of “freedom week”, or magazines possessed before the possession ban was enacted, are protected until the Supreme Court decides what to do with the case following our upcoming cert petition.
“CRPA sincerely hopes the Supreme Court will finally do its job and confirm that the magazines California seeks to ban are protected arms.”
To explain the legal strategy: “The motion to stay the mandate” is to preserve the legal status of these grand-fathered magazines purchased during the so-called “freedom week.” This is an effort to prevent thousands of Californians from being criminalized while the case is appealed to the Supreme Court.
Background: On March 20, the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc in San Francisco, issued a 7-4 decision upholding California’s ban on large-capacity magazines (LCMs)—defined as magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The majority concluded that this ban is constitutional under the Second Amendment. The case, Duncan v. Bonta, has been a long-running challenge to California’s restrictions, originally stemming from a 2016 voter-approved law (Proposition 63) and earlier statutes limiting magazine capacity.
We can expect the CRPA to file an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court soon. However, as we have been reporting, there are other cases in the SCOTUS docket: Snope v. Maryland (an AR-15 ban case), Ocean State Tactical from Rhode Island, and Antonyuk v. James challenging New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement, A favorable Snope ruling could set a precedent to overturn Duncan. If Snope is not granted certiorari, Duncan will likely not be either. The Supreme Court could issue a summary reversal if it does not want to take the case for a full review next term.
New York: Second Circuit
Christian v. James: Case No: 22-2987: The Christian v. James case from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal stems from the district court’s October 10, 2024, ruling by Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr., which struck down New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) restriction on carrying firearms on private property open to the public (N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01-d) as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The state defendants, represented by New York State Police Superintendent Steven G. James, sought to stay the ruling pending appeal, but the district court denied the stay on October 23, 2024. No rulings have been issued yet.
Maine: First Circuit
Beckwith v. Frey: Case No: 25-1160: On April 10, 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that the State of Maine, which had appealed to the Appeals Court after the issuance of a preliminary injunction by Judge Lance Walker, was not granted injunctive relief. The Court wrote: “Moreover, the Attorney General’s failure to seek expedited review of the stay Motion or the appeal undercuts any claim that immediate relief from the injunction is required to prevent irreparable harm. Accordingly, we deny the request for a stay and reserve consideration of merits to the panel hearing the appeal.”
Background: On Nov. 14, 2024, a case was filed against Maine Bill LD2238, which required a 72-hour waiting period prior to the purchase of a firearm. Seeking an injunction and an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining its enforcement. On February 13, 2025, Judge Lance Walker granted Preliminary Injunctive Relief. That order was appealed both to Judge Walker and to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on Feb. 17.
Circuit Court
Maryland: Fourth Circuit
National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., v. Brown; Case # 1:25-cv-01115-RDB: On April 3, 2025, NSSF, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, filed a lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland seeking to block Maryland’s Gun Industry Accountability Act, or House Bill 947, that attempts to circumvent the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).
“The PLCAA prohibits the type of lawsuit brought by Maryland Attorney General Brown against GLOCK, Inc.,” explained Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “Attorney General Brown is targeting perfectly legal commerce. Maryland’s law that seeks to impose a gun control agenda through litigation not only runs afoul of the PLCAA, but it also violates the First Amendment by limiting protected commercial free speech, the Commerce Clause and the Second Amendment.”
Pennsylvania: Third Circuit
Young v. Ott: Case #3:24-cv-00274: On April 4, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a Reply in support of the motion for a preliminary injunction, expedited consolidation with the merits, or, in the alternative, summary judgment. FPC President Brandon Combs commented on the state’s delaying tactic.
“Most courts, including the Third Circuit, have held that adults under 21 have the same Second Amendment rights as all other adults. We look forward to eliminating these bans and restoring the right to keep and bear arms for all peaceable adults.”
From the brief: “When Plaintiffs filed their motion for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, the State sought a stay pending a decision in Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police. Now, displeased with the result in Lara II, the State acts like the case does not exist. This Court does not have that option. It is bound to follow Lara II’s holding that 18-to-20-year-olds have full Second Amendment rights and to rule in Plaintiffs’ favor.”
Background: This case was initiated by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the National Rifle Association (NRA) on Nov. 22, 2024, in the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. On Dec. 20, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in their challenge to the Pennsylvania ban affecting 18-to-20-years from carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home. A telephonic status hearing was held on January 8, 2025, before Judge Stephanie L. Haines. Defendant Colonel Christopher Paris requested a stay pending the case of Lara v. Commissioner State Police, which the US Court of Appeals disposes of for the Third Circuit. The stay was granted. On March 12, 2025, the stay was lifted. Since that date, several briefs have been filed, and on March 4, Judge Haines granted defendant Paris’ motion for responding to the plaintiff’s statement of material facts.
State Court
Illinois: Lake County Circuit Court: Judge Jorge L. Ortiz
Roberts v. Smith & Wesson: The lawsuit involves survivors and families of victims of the Highland Park shooting suing Smith & Wesson, the manufacturer of the M&P 15 rifle—an AR-15-style firearm—used by the shooter, Robert Crimo III. The attack resulted in seven deaths and dozens of injuries. Crimo pleaded guilty to murder and attempted murder charges in March 2025 and faces life imprisonment. On April 1, Judge Ortiz denied most of Smith & Wesson’s motions to dismiss the lawsuit. S&W tried to use the PLCAA law as a defense. Although Ortiz dismissed claims of deceptive business practices, he allowed claims of unfair business practices and negligence to proceed, The decision also permitted the case to move forward against two gun dealers, Bud’s Gun Shop and Red Dot Arms, who sold the rifle to Crimo.
In a video concerning this case, attorney Mark W. Smith (youtube.com/thefourboxesdiner), connects this case to the Mexico v. Smith & Wesson case, which is currently before SCOTUS. Smith emphasizes the importance of a broad ruling applying PlCAA to limit liability based on proximate causation.
