By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: Snope v. Brown and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island no new relisting; Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos: Docket: 23-1141: Good article in the March 9, 2025 Reason magazine, Trump Administration: 2A Restoration Working Group; US v. Allam: Case 24-40065: On March 6, the Fifth Circuit heard oral arguments on the question of federal restriction of carrying a firearm without a license within 1,000 feet of a school;
SCOTUS
As of the latest Supreme Court orders list on March 10, neither case has been granted nor denied certiorari. The repeated relisting—where the Court postpones a decision and schedules the cases for further discussion at subsequent conferences—suggests the justices are still deliberating whether to take them up. However, no new conference date has been publicly confirmed beyond the last known relisting, and the Court’s next steps remain uncertain.
Snope v. Brown: Docket 24-303: The case was distributed for the Supreme Court’s Jan. 10 conference and relisted multiple times.
Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island: Docket 24-131: The plaintiffs sought U.S. Supreme Court review (Docket 24-131), arguing the ban infringes on their rights to bear arms in common use. The case was distributed for the justices’ Feb. 28 conference—its sixth relisting—alongside Snope v. Brown.
Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos: Docket: 23-1141: In the March 9 Reason magazine, Second Amendment attorney and scholar Stephen Halbrook covers this case and urges that SCOTUS deal with the standard for proximate cause rather than ruling against Mexico on narrow grounds. His arguments are well reasoned:
“The firearms industry is facing a wave of lawsuits in which anti-gun activists are asking courts to hold the industry responsible for the criminal misuse of its products by third parties. E.g., Lowy v. Daniel Defense, et al., No. 24-1822 (4th Cir.) (lawsuit seeking to hold fifteen members of the firearms industry liable for school shooting in Washington, D.C.); Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Diamondback Incorporate, No. 22-472 (D. Arizona) (lawsuit filed by Mexican government against firearms dealers); City of Rochester v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., No. 23-6061 (W.D.N.Y.) (lawsuit filed by City of Rochester seeking to hold more than two dozen members of firearms industry liable for city’s gun violence); Cluney v. Brownells, Inc., No. 24-207 (D. Maine) (lawsuit seeking to hold members of the firearms industry liable for domestic violence incident); Mitchell v. River City Firearms, Inc., No. 24-CI-000518 (Jefferson Circuit Court, Kentucky) (lawsuit seeking to hold members of firearms industry liable for mass shooting in Louisville).,,,If not corrected, the First Circuit’s reasoning will be embraced by anti-gun activists in lawsuits going forward. This decision has already created disarray on the issue of proximate cause in the lower courts, and it is certain to metastasize and spread until the Supreme Court intervenes.”
Jacobson v, Worth: 23-782: Petition for a writ of certiorari filed by the State of Minnesota and on March 10, 2025, Kristen Worth filed her brief with the following: The Court Should Grant Certiorari To Resolve the Split Between the Circuits Over the Important Question Presented.
Worth v. Jacobson: Case # 23-2248, Eighth Circuit: On Aug. 21, 2024, the state of Minnesota was denied both a petition for rehearing en banc and by the panel. The decision of the District Court Judge Katherine Menendez has been upheld. Judge Menendez stated that Minnesota Law requires:
“A person must be at least 21 years of age to receive a permit to carry a handgun in Minnesota publicly violates the rights of individuals 18-20 years old to keep and bear arms protected by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.”
Worth v. Harrington: Minnesota’s 2003 Citizens’ Personal Protection Act required applicants to be “at least 21 years of age.” In this case, three plaintiffs under the age of 21 brought suit against their respective sheriffs for enforcing the Minnesota statute. Judge Menendez on March 31 stated that Minnesota Law requiring “a person must be at least 21 years of age to receive a permit to publicly carry a handgun in Minnesota violates the rights of individuals 18-20 years old to keep and bear arms protected by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.”
Trump Administration
Department of Justice
Attorney Mark W. Smith, who hosts a channel, The Four Boxes Diner, on YouTube.com, published a video on March 11 titled AG Pam Bondi Forms 2A Restoration Working Group. His video is based on a New York Times March 10 story titled Justice Dept. Official Says She Was Fired After Opposing Restoring Mel Gibson’s Gun Rights.
The Times reports that a working group within the Department of Justice (DOJ), under Attorney General Pam Bondi, has been formed to restore Second Amendment rights to individuals convicted of crimes deemed not dangerous to society. This initiative is seen as a significant step toward expanding gun rights, aligning with Trump’s pro-Second Amendment stance.
The Times report highlights that DOJ pardon attorney Elizabeth O’Connor was dismissed because she refused to support adding Mel Gibson to a list of people who should restore their Second Amendment rights. When Ms. Oyer sent her list of nine selected candidates to have their Second Amendment rights restored, someone in the deputy attorney general’s office asked her to add Mel Gibson to the list. When she refused 24 hours later, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, a Trump appointee, dismissed her.
In his YouTube video, Smith connects this development to recent legal precedents, including the 2024 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Rahimi, which ruled that individuals can be temporarily disarmed if proven violently dangerous, but not permanently unless justified. He also cites Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s 2019 dissent in Kanter v. Barr, arguing that nonviolent felons shouldn’t lose gun rights for life, and the Third Circuit’s Range decision, which restored rights to a man convicted of a minor, nonviolent offense decades ago. These cases, Smith argues, provide a legal foundation for the DOJ’s current efforts.
Court of Appeals
US v. Allam: Case 24-40065: On March 6, the Fifth Circuit heard oral arguments. CRPA, the Second Amendment Law Center, and the Second Amendment Foundation submitted an amicus brief. Chuck Michel, @CRPAPresident on X, summarized the argument:
“The law is facially unconstitutional because there is no sufficient historical tradition of expansive “buffer zones” around the few sensitive places that did exist in the past.”
The audio is available. As a result of the July 19, 2024, pro-Second Amendment group’s amicus brief, Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund and Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence each filed their amicus briefs.
Background: Allam was arrested while living out of his van, possessing a firearm, while parked near a school. Our amicus brief argued that the Gun-Free School Zones Act is facially unconstitutional due to the lack of historical tradition of barring carry in large zones around a place, even if that place is deemed sensitive. The criminal case Case Number 1:23-CR-00010-MAC=ZJH(I) was docketed on Jan. 30, 2024. On Feb. 1, 2024, the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was denied by Judge Marcia A. Crone of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, and he was found guilty and sentenced to 60 months in federal prison. The case was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
