By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: Snope v. Brown and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island, relisted for March 28; Antoyuk v. James, listed for March 28 conference; Worth v. Jacobson: Case # 23-2248: is awaiting certiorari decision; Court of Appeals: Duncan v. Bonta, Case #: 23-55805: the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc in San Francisco, issued a 7-4 decision upholding California’s ban on large-capacity magazines (LCMs); Schoenthal V. Raoul: Case No: 24-2643 and 24-2644: Illinois appealed Judge Iain D. Johnston’s decision to the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; District of Columbia: Wehr-Darroca v. D.C. Case: 1:24-cv-03504: challenging the Washington, D.C., ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds; Granata v. Healey: Case No. 1:21-cv-10960-DJC: motion for summary judgment filed.
SCOTUS
March 28, 2025 conference:
Snope and Ocean State have been relisted from the March 21 conference.
Snope v. Brown: Docket 24-303: This case was distributed for the Supreme Court’s January 10 conference and has been relisted multiple times.
Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island: Docket 24-131: The plaintiffs sought a U.S. Supreme Court review, arguing that the ban infringes on their rights to bear arms in common use.
Antoyuk v. James: Second Appeal to SCOTUS: Case No. 24-795: This case was docketed on January 27, and on March 12, it was listed for the conference on March 28. 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). However, it vacated the district court’s injunctions concerning other aspects, including the character and cohabitant requirements, determining these likely constitutional. Some sensitive location restrictions, such as those in treatment centers, were considered likely constitutional, while restrictions on places of worship were rendered moot due to legislative amendments.
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.
Background: On Aug. 21, 2024, the state of Minnesota (the governor of this state is Tim Walz, the losing Democrat candidate for Vice-President on the Democrat ticket) was denied a petition for rehearing en banc 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.”
As a result, Minnesota has asked SCOTUS for certiorari in this case.
Background: On July 16, 2024, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that The Carry Ban, § 624.714 subd. 2(b)(2) violates the Second Amendment as applied to Minnesota through the
The Fourteenth Amendment is unconstitutional. On March 31, 2023, Judge Katherine Menendezgranted summary judgment restoring the Right to Carry to young adults. This case was originally brought on June 7, 2021.
Court of Appeals
California: Ninth Circuit
Duncan v. Bonta, Case #: 23-55805. 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.
The decision wasn’t unanimous. Notable dissents, like Judge Lawrence VanDyke’s, criticized the majority’s ignorance of firearm mechanics and their defiance of Supreme Court precedent. VanDyke’s dissent (partially on video) highlighted the practical necessity of magazines and the majority’s disconnect from how guns work, reinforcing your view that the ruling is technically and constitutionally unsound.
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.
Illinois: Seventh Circuit
Schoenthal V. Raoul: Case No: 24-2643 and 24-2644:n Illinois has appealed Judge Iain D. Johnston’s decision to the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on January 15. Both sides have filed briefs.
Background: Schoenthal v. Raoul: The case dealing with firearms licensees carrying on public transportation in the state of Illinois was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition in September 2022, and on March 1, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a memo in support of summary judgment and a permanent injunction. On Aug. 20, 2024, the plaintiffs announced that Federal District Court Judge Iain D. Johnston declared the State of Illinois’ ban on carrying firearms on public transportation and in public transportation facilities unconstitutional as applied to the named plaintiffs. That opinion, along with other case documents, can be viewed here.
“The Court finds that Defendants failed to meet their burden to show an American tradition of firearm regulation at the time of the Founding that would allow Illinois to prohibit Plaintiffs—who hold concealed-carry permits—from carrying concealed handguns for self-defense onto the CTA andMetra.4 For the following reasons, Ms. Foxx’s motion is denied, State Defendants’ motion is denied, and the Plaintiffs’ motion is granted in part.”
District Court
District of Columbia
Wehr-Darroca v. D.C. Case: 1:24-cv-03504: This lawsuit was filed on Dec. 18, 2024, to challenge the Washington, D.C., ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds. On March 3, 2025, the plaintiffs opposed the Defendants’ motion to Dismiss.
Massachusetts: First Circuit
Granata v. Healey: Case No. 1:21-cv-10960-DJC: Finally, on Jan. 6, the plaintiffs filed their motion for summary judgment against the Massachusetts Handgun Ban. On Feb. 5, the Defendants filed their motion for Summary Judgment, and finally, the Plaintiffs responded on March 7.
Background: On Jan. 31, the State of MA filed its brief in First Circuit Court. This case was brought in 2021, challenging the handgun regulatory scheme of the state. On May 19, 2022, Judge Rya W. Zobel in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts found that “the challenged regulations therefore pass intermediate scrutiny.” In June 2022 an appeal was initiated to the US Court of Appeals for he First Circuit. The plaintiffs filed a Motion in the Court of Appeals for Vacatur and Remand back to the Circuit Court as a result of the Bruen decision. On October 11, 2022, the First Circuit Court of Appeals denied the motion to Vacate and Remand and the briefing schedule remains in effect. However, on April 7, 2023, the First Circuit Court of Appeals entered the following judgment: “In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), the district court’s judgment is vacated, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. In remanding this matter, we take no position on the outcome previously reached by the district court, and we do not retain jurisdiction. Rather, in the event that any party contests the district court’s decision, a timely new notice of appeal should be filed. No costs are awarded.”
