By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: Snope v. Brown and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island still waiting until March 7; Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos: Docket: 23-1141: Oral arguments held March 4; FPC: Cheeseman v. Platkin: 24-2450 Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Platkin: Case 2402415: and Ellman v,. Platkin: Case No: 24-2506: On Feb. 7, Appellants-Cross Appellees (Cheeseman et al.) filed their brief; Lara v. Pennsylvania: Case No. 21-1832: The Pennsylvania Attorney General sought a rehearing en banc (by the full Third Circuit) but it was denied, earlier pro-Second Amendment ruling; State of Texas v. BATFE: Case 2:24-cv-00089-Z: Judge Matthew J. Kascsmaryk denied the government’s motion to stay a lawsuit challenging the ATF’s “engaged in the business” rule.
SCOTUS
Both these cases are now rescheduled for the conference of March 7
Snope v. Brown: Docket 24-303: The case was distributed for the Supreme Court’s January 10, 2025, conference and relisted multiple times, now Friday March 7, 2025.
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’ March 7, 2025, conference—its sixth relisting—alongside Snope v. Brown.
Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos: Docket: 23-1141: The lead paragraph on the March 4, SCOTUS Blog began their report projections that Mexico would lose the case: “The Supreme Court on Tuesday signaled that it was likely to shut down a lawsuit brought by the Mexican government, seeking to hold seven major U.S. gun makers and a gun wholesaler responsible for violence committed by Mexican drug cartels with U.S.-made weapons. A majority of the court appeared to agree with the gun makers that the Mexican government’s suit is barred by a 2005 law intended to shield the gun industry from lawsuits in U.S. courts for the misuse of guns by others.”
While on the other hand, Mark W. Smith, a constitutional attorney and Second Amendment advocate, on his YouTube channel, The Four Boxes Diner, was more measured in his analysis. Smith expresses concern that the victory may be narrow, focusing solely on federal law interpretation rather than a broader ruling on “proximate cause.” He concludes that while the gun industry will likely prevail, the narrow ruling anticipated will leave the door open for future state-level lawsuits, necessitating further legal battles to secure broader Second Amendment protections.
The decision should be known by the end of June, if not sooner.
Background: Lower Court Case # 22-1823: On Oct. 4, 2024, Certiorari was granted in this case, and it will be decided by the end of June 2025. SCOTUS held oral arguments Tuesday.
The questions presented are:
1. Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the “proximate cause” of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico.
2. Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked.
Court of Appeals
New Jersey: Second Circuit
FPC: Cheeseman v. Platkin: 24-2450 Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Platkin: Case 2402415: and Ellman v,. Platkin: Case No: 24-2506: On February 7, 2025, Appellants-Cross Appellees (Cheeseman et al.) filed their brief. On Feb. 28, New Jersey filed its responding brief. Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled.
Background: Background: The first complaint was filed on June 30, 2022. It read: “New Jersey applies the pejorative label of “assault firearm” to a large number of constitutionally protected firearms and criminalizes their possession. N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 2C:39-1(w), 2C:39-5(f).”
The case was consolidated with the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Platkin and the Ellman, Rogers, and Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Platkin on Feb. 6, 2023. In that decision, Judge Sheridan noted the NJ Attorney General’s propensity for “moving the goalposts.”
On July 30, 2024, District Judge Peter G. Sheridan held that:
“AR-15 Provision of [New Jersey’s] Assault Firearms Law is unconstitutional under Bruen and Heller as to the Colt AR-15 for the use of self-defense within the home.”
However, Judge Sheridan upheld the magazine ban. The District Court’s partial stay—allowing enforcement of the ban except for in-home AR-15 possession—remains in place during the appeal.
On January 8, 2025, New Jersey filed its brief supporting the Assault weapons ban and the ban on magazines over 10 rounds in the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The main thrust of the NJ argument is that the state has a responsibility to protect residents from mass shootings and dangerous weapons. They further argue that the burden of proof that a firearm is in common use is the plaintiffs’ responsibility.
Pennsylvania: Third Circuit
Lara v. Pennsylvania: Case No. 21-1832: The Pennsylvania Attorney General sought a rehearing en banc (by the full Third Circuit), arguing that the panel’s focus on 1791 ignored relevant 19th Century laws and Supreme Court guidance on nuanced approaches to modern firearm issues. However, on Feb. 26, the Third Circuit denied this request, solidifying the earlier pro-Second Amendment ruling.
Background: This case began before the Bruen decision and was stopped for six months while SCOTUS decided Bruen. It was first filed on Oct. 16, 2020. Then, a motion for a preliminary injunction was filed on Dec. 1, 2020. The final order by Judge William B. Stickman denying the motion for a preliminary injunction and granting the state of Pennsylvania’s motion to dismiss was issued on April 16, 2021. The Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal on April 23, 2021. Then came Bruen. In July 2022, the case at the Circuit Court had to be reargued with the new SCOTUS guidelines in mind.The District Court ruled against the plaintiffs, and they appealed to theUS Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. A three-judge panel of that Court issued this opinion on January 18, 2024: “The words “the people” in the Second Amendment presumptively encompass all adult Americans, including 18- to 20-year-olds, and we are aware of no founding-era law that supports disarming people in that age group. Accordingly, we will reverse and remand.”
After the Supreme Court reviewed the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ original decision and vacated and remanded the case to be reheard in light of Rahimi, the Appeals Court reaffirmed its previous opinion, once more striking down Pennsylvania’s laws preventing 18 to 20-year-old adults from openly carrying a loaded firearm outside their homes during a declared state of emergency.
District Court
State of Texas v. BATFE: Case 2:24-cv-00089-Z: Judge Matthew J. Kascsmaryk has denied the government’s motion to stay a lawsuit challenging the ATF’s “engaged in the business” rule. At the same time, the case is being reviewed pursuant to Trump’s Second Amendment executive order, which means it will continue. This is the first official acknowledgment of Attorney General Pam Bondi’s motions filed earlier this month.
Background: Texas and co-plaintiffs challenge the ATF rule redefining what it means to be “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms under the Bipartisan Safe Communities Act of the Biden Administration.
On May 19, 2024, Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk granted a temporary restraining order (TRO), later extended to a preliminary injunction on June 11, 2024, barring enforcement against the named plaintiffs (excluding states Louisiana, Mississippi, and Utah) pending litigation. The court found the rule likely unlawful, citing irreparable harm—like unrecoverable compliance costs and enforcement risks—and a lack of clear congressional authorization for the ATF’s broad interpretation. Both plaintiffs had filed motions for summary judgment.
