By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: still on summer break; REVIEW OF WASHINGTON EXAMINER ARTICLE on The Shadow Docket; Minnesota: Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: United States v. Bridges, Case number 24-05874. A machine gun case; Minnesota Supreme Court: State of Minnesota v. Logan Hunter Vagle: Case Number: A23-0863.The Minnesota law on unserialized firearms.
Court of Appeals
Minnesota: Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
United States v. Bridges: Case number 24-05874. The decision was issued on Aug. 7, in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case to decide whether machine guns are protected by the Constitution’s Second Amendment. The defendant, Keane Bridges, was involved in a violent encounter with police, using a Glock pistol converted with a “switch” into a machine gun, shooting at officers during a car chase in Memphis.
The court did not find his Second Amendment challenge persuasive, given the facts and established precedent. A decisive 3-0 opinion in this case decided “that machine guns are not protected arms” under the Second Amendment. The judges found that federal law, specifically 18 USC §922(o), which bans private possession of machine guns, is constitutional both on its face and as applied in this case.
The panel relied on precedent from earlier Supreme Court decisions, particularly “District of Columbia v. Heller” and “New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.” The court classified machine guns as “dangerous and unusual weapons”—a category traditionally subject to restrictions and bans. Machine guns were cited as particularly dangerous due to their rapid rate of fire, capability for collateral damage, and relative rarity (fewer than 200,000 circulating), all factors used to justify historical and contemporary regulation.
In his YouTube.com video, Mark W. Smith emphasizes the case’s importance for gun rights advocates, the strategic implications of its outcome, and the broader legal landscape. Smith argues that, paradoxically, gun rights supporters should be relieved by this loss at the appellate level. If lower courts were to find that machine guns are protected, the federal government would almost certainly appeal to the Supreme Court. Smith believes that the current Supreme Court makeup would decisively rule against the protection of machine guns, setting a “catastrophic” nationwide precedent that could last generations. Instead, it’s better strategically for gun rights advocates to lose “as well as possible” in lower courts, keeping options open for future changes in court composition. He prefers that civil suits brought by ordinary, law-abiding citizens make their way to the Supreme Court, as these are more likely to establish favorable precedents.
This strategy, however, relies strongly on plaintiffs agreeing with it. There is no guarantee that any plaintiff, including defendant Keane Bridges, will be persuaded to drop his case. In a case such as this one and the Rahimi case that went to SCOTUS, the plaintiffs were involved in criminal encounters with law enforcement and cannot be classified as law-abiding citizens.
State Courts
Minnesota Supreme Court: State of Minnesota v. Logan Hunter Vagle: Case Number: A23-0863
The 5-2 decision issued on Aug. 7 ruled that possessing “ghost guns”—firearms without serial numbers—is legal under state law in some cases, as Minnesota’s statute (Minn. Stat. § 609.667(3)) only bans possession of unserialized firearms when federal law requires a serial number. The case came from a 2022 incident in Fridley, where Logan Hunter Vagle was charged with felony possession of a firearm without a serial number after a self-assembled Glock 19 pistol was found in his vehicle following a rollover crash. Vagle had built the gun from parts bought in 2021, before 2022 federal regulations required serial numbers on specific firearm kits. The district court initially dismissed the charge, citing unconstitutionality due to vagueness, but the Court of Appeals reversed that ruling. The Supreme Court, however, agreed with the district court, clarifying that Minnesota relies on federal law, which did not require a serial number for Vagle’s pistol, and thus lacks an independent serial number requirement. The court acknowledged that ghost guns pose public safety risks but left regulation to the legislature, prompting calls from State Senator Ron Latz to introduce legislation in 2026 to close this gap.
In a video on YouTube, Second Amendment scholar Mark W. Smith summarizes this case as a win. He believes that the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision is a clear victory for Second Amendment advocates, setting a precedent that prevents criminal prosecution for possession of unserialized, privately made firearms unless federal law explicitly requires serialization. For now, Minnesota gun owners remain protected under this interpretation, pending any future legislative action.
SCOTUS—The Shadow Docket
The Aug. 11 edition of the Washington Examiner included an article on the so-called Shadow Docket. It defends the Supreme Court’s use of its shadow docket, arguing that concerns about its lack of transparency and potential for abuse are overblown.
The shadow docket refers to the Court’s process for handling emergency requests, such as stays or injunctions, which are decided quickly, often without full briefing, oral arguments, or detailed explanations. The article, reflecting a conservative perspective, counters criticisms from Democrats and legal scholars who view the shadow docket as a threat to judicial legitimacy, asserting instead that it serves a necessary function in urgent situations.
The piece, which is behind a paywall, begins by addressing the heightened scrutiny of the shadow docket, particularly from figures like Sen. Cory Booker, who has called its use a threat to transparency. The author dismisses these concerns as a “Democratic meme,” suggesting that critics exaggerate the docket’s impact to push for broader judicial reforms, such as court-packing or term limits. The article argues that the shadow docket is not a new phenomenon but a long-standing mechanism for addressing time-sensitive matters, such as stays of execution or temporary injunctions, which require swift action to prevent irreparable harm.
The author highlights the 2024-25 term, noting the shadow docket’s role in handling numerous Trump administration appeals. Examples include Trump v. Boyle, where the Court allowed the firing of Consumer Product Safety Commission members, and Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, permitting federal workforce reductions. These rulings, often unsigned and brief, have fueled criticism for lacking transparency. However, the article contends that such decisions are temporary and subject to further litigation, not final rulings that set binding precedent. It argues that the Court’s conservative majority is appropriately responding to urgent executive actions, particularly when lower courts issue broad injunctions that overstep their authority.
The piece further addresses specific criticisms, such as the lack of recorded votes or detailed opinions. It acknowledges that shadow docket orders can seem opaque but defends this as a practical necessity given the time constraints of emergency applications. The author cites historical precedent, noting that the Court has long used the docket for procedural matters, and its current use reflects the polarized legal landscape rather than judicial overreach.
Ultimately, the Washington Examiner argues that the shadow docket is a vital tool for maintaining judicial efficiency in a fast-paced legal environment. It accuses critics of using the issue to advance partisan agendas, particularly in response to rulings favoring Trump’s policies. The article concludes that, while transparency is essential, the shadow docket’s expedited process is justified for urgent matters, and fears of its misuse are largely unfounded. It calls for a balanced view, recognizing the Court’s role in navigating complex, time-sensitive disputes without succumbing to alarmist narratives.
