By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—Scotus: Certiorari appeals: Jamond M. Rush v. United States: Case No. 24-1259; Camarda v. Whitehorn, et al.: Case No. 25-5166: Courts of Appeals: Third Circuit: Koons & Siegel v. Platkin: Case No. 23- 1900—oral argument was held on Oct. 25, 2023—nothing since. Eighth Circuit: United States v. Cooper: Case No. 24-1998; District Courts: Connecticut: First District: Succow v. Bondi: Case No: 3:25-cv-00250; Missouri: Eighth Circuit: Brown, Mayville, Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutiques, National Rifle Association of America, Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, and American Suppressor Association v. BATFE: Case No: 4:25-cv-01162: Massachusetts: First Circuit: Escher v. Massachusetts: Case 1:25-cv-10389: NFA case; State of Texas v. Blackrock, Inc., State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group: Case No. 6-24-cv-00437-DJK; State Courts: District Court, Denver County, Colorado; Zachary Langston v. Heidi Humphreys: Filing ID BF37C5F2B4F05, Case No: 2025CV31185. This case filed this past March 31, challenges Proposition KK that imposes a 6.5% excise tax on the retail sale of “any firearms, firearms precursor part, or ammunition.”
SCOTUS
Certiorari cases
These cases have been filed for consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court
Jamond M. Rush v. United States: Case No. 24-1259: Petitioner Jamond M. Rush, filed for certiorari on July 10, after he was found guilty of owning an unregistered SBR at the district court, and that decision was upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on March 10. The NRA Institute for Legislative Action is now litigating this case. The question asked in the request for certiorari is:
“Whether the Second Amendment secures the right to possess unregistered short-barreled rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes.”
On June 13, the U.S. Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, filed a waiver of its right to file a response:
“The Government hereby waives its right to file a response to the petition in this case, unless requested to do so by the Court.”
On July 31, SCOTUS requested a response from the Trump Administration to be filed by Sept. 2.
Second Amendment scholar Mark W. Smith posted a YouTube video discussing the case and its significance. In this video, Smith emphasizes that the burden is on the government at the “historical tradition” stage of analysis to show a tradition of regulating or banning SBRs; in his view, such historical precedent is lacking. He criticizes lower courts for wrongly shifting this burden to rights claimants and for mischaracterizing various textual and historical layers of analysis, thereby muddying constitutional clarity. He concludes by being optimistic that the Trump DOJ will file a brief supportive of Second Amendment rights. This case is currently scheduled for conference on Sept. 29.
Camarda v. Whitehorn, et al.: Case No. 25-5166: On July 22, Thomas E. Camarda petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, with a response deadline of Aug. 21. The case challenges § 922(g)(5), which criminalizes firearm possession by illegal aliens, and could have wider implications for Second Amendment jurisprudence. The video explains a circuit split that adds to the case’s importance. The Fifth and Eighth Circuits (U.S. v. Portillo-Munoz and U.S. v. Sitladeen) have upheld § 922(g)(5), ruling that illegal aliens are not protected by the Second Amendment because they lack lawful ties to the political community. Meanwhile, a district court in the Northern District of Illinois (U.S. v. Carbajal-Flores, Case No. 1:20-cr-00613) found the statute unconstitutional as applied, arguing that the defendant, a noncitizen with no violent history, is protected under Bruen’s framework. This split creates uncertainty, making Supreme Court review likely.
Court of Appeals
The below-listed consolidated cases have not been covered during the two years I have been writing the Grassroots Judicial Updates because the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has not issued a decision since the oral argument was held on Oct. 25, 2023. An excellent article in reason.com by noted Second Amendment scholar and attorney Stephen Halbrook, on this case has brought its omission to my attention. So I am summarizing it below. However, the lack of the Court’s attention to this matter for almost 24 months shows the lack of interest by the Third Circuit in a matter that deals with a fundamental right.
Koons & Siegel v. Platkin: Case No. 23- 1900: The Bumb decision was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. As Halbrook notes: “The Third Circuit then held oral argument promptly on Oct. 25, 2023. For the two consolidated cases, the argument lasted two hours and forty minutes before Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, Judge David Porter, and Judge Cindy Chung. And that’s where the trail ends. Almost two years have passed without a decision.”
Koons & Siegel v. Platkin: Case No. 1:22-cv-07463: US District Court for the District of New Jersey. Halbrook summarized Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb’s May 15, 2023 decision as follows:
“Chief Judge Renée Marie Bumb in the consolidated cases of Koons & Siegel v. Platkin, decided on May 16, 2023 wrote an incredibly thorough 230-page opinion, applied Bruen’s text and history approach, and found that much of the New Jersey law likely violated the Second Amendment. She issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of those provisions.”
“Chief Judge Renée Marie Bumb in the consolidated cases of Koons & Siegel v. Platkin, decided on May 16, 2023 wrote an incredibly thorough 230-page opinion, applied Bruen’s text and history approach, and found that much of the New Jersey law likely violated the Second Amendment. She issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of those provisions.”
Iowa: Eighth Circuit
United States v. Cooper: Case No. 24-1998. In an article on townhall.com, the author hints that his case may come before SCOTUS. As of now, there is no record of certiorari being sought. This case was decided in 2025 and published on Feb. 4.
Facts: LaVance Cooper was found guilty of being a drug user in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § (922(g)(3), which prohibits individuals who are unlawful users of or addicted to controlled substances from possessing firearms. During a traffic stop, officers found a Glock 20 pistol in Cooper’s car. Cooper admitted to smoking marijuana three to four times a week, including two days before the stop. He consented to a bench trial on stipulated facts, and the district court sentenced him to 37 months in prison. According to thetruthaboutguns.com, the Eighth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to evaluate whether Cooper’s specific situation aligned with historical traditions of firearm regulation, referencing their prior decision in United States v. Veasley (98 F.4th 906, 908, 8th Cir. 2024). The court noted that while disarming drug users may sometimes be constitutional (e.g., when analogous to historical laws confining the “mentally ill and dangerous” or prohibiting taking up arms to terrify), it may not always be. The district court was tasked with determining if Cooper’s case fell within permissible restrictions under the Second Amendment. As of Aug. 5, there has been no request for certiorari at SCOTUS, but we will keep an eye on this case.
District Court
Connecticut: First District
Succow v. Bondi: Case No: 3:25-cv-00250: A memorandum of law in support of plaintiff’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. This lawsuit was filed on February 18 against both Federal and Connecticut statutes prohibiting “any adult between the ages of 18 and 20 years old from acquiring, possessing, or carrying handguns and handgun ammunition.”
After some delays in scheduling, further memoranda were filed in June and July 2025 by both the plaintiffs and the defendants.
Massachusetts: First Circuit
Escher v. Massachusetts: Case 1:25-cv-10389: On July 29, 2025, the hearing schedule deadlines were scheduled: “Defendants’ expert reports must be disclosed by September 10, 2025. Plaintiffs’ rebuttal expert reports, if any, must be disclosed by October 1, 2025. All discovery must be completed by October 22, 2025. Motions for summary judgment must be filed by November 20, 2025. Oppositions to summary judgment motions must be filed by December 18, 2025.”
This is another case contesting H.B. 4885, a Massachusetts law denying 18- to 20-year-olds their Second Amendment rights. The Firearms Policy Coalition filed the case on Feb. 14, 2024, and is currently in the preliminary stages of discovery.
Missouri: Eighth Circuit
Brown, Mayville, Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutiques, National Rifle Association of America, Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, and American Suppressor Association v. BATFE: Case No: 4:25-cv-01162: was filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on August 1, 2025. This case alleges that Suppressors are Second Amendment-protected arms, Suppressors are in Common Use, Suppressors Have Many Lawful, Safe, and Common Uses, Short-Barreled Rifles are Second Amendment-protected arms, and there is No Historical Tradition Supporting the NFA’s Comprehensive Regulatory Scheme for Protected Arms. It seeks Relief by asking the Court to:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the following relief from this Court:
a. Declare that the NFA’s requirements relating to making, transferring,
receiving, possessing, or otherwise using untaxed firearms exceed
Congress’s enumerated powers, both facially and as-applied;
b: Declare that any regulations promulgated, in whole or in part, under such requirements are unlawful;
c. Declare that such requirements and any regulations implementing them
violate the Second Amendment with respect to suppressors and short-
barreled rifles, both facially and as-applied;
d. Enjoin Defendants and their employees, agents, successors, or any other
person acting in concert with them, from implementing, enforcing, or
otherwise acting under the authority of the NFA with respect to violations
in any way predicated on failure to comply with the NFA’s unconstitutional
provisions pertaining to making, transferring, receiving, possessing, or
using untaxed firearms or, in the alternative, untaxed suppressors and short-
barreled rifles;
e. Enjoin Defendants and their employees, agents, successors, or any other
person acting in concert with them, from implementing, enforcing, or
otherwise acting under the authority of all regulations promulgated to
effectuate the challenged NFA requirements, including, but not limited to,
27 C.F.R. §§ 479.62 and 479.84;
f. Award Plaintiffs the costs of this action and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
g. Award Plaintiffs such other legal and equitable relief as is just and
appropriate and as necessary to effectuate the Court’s judgment.
The lawsuit asserts two main legal arguments:
1. Article I (Enumerated Powers) Challenge: With the tax gone, the federal government loses its constitutional basis to require registration and regulation under its taxing authority.
2. Second Amendment Challenge: The continued regulatory regime violates the Second Amendment, as there is no historical tradition justifying such restrictions, especially for commonly owned firearms accessories and types of arms.
State of Texas v. Blackrock, Inc., State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group: Case No. 6-24-cv-00437-DJK
This case is a federal antitrust case that Mark W. Smith, attorney, author, and owner of the Four Boxes Diner Channel on YouTube, has highlighted because he believes this case may be helpful to deter anti-Second Amendment activists from targeting the firearms industry. On Aug. 1, Texas federal district judge Jeremy D. Kernodle found that BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street plausibly colluded to leverage their proxy voting power from index funds, coordinating actions that harmed competition within the coal industry—all in service of advancing ESG and DEI agendas instead of maximizing shareholder value. Mark W. Smith analyzes this decision as a judicial “roadmap” for future suits against corporations prioritizing social policies over financial returns, arguing it sets a precedent to protect not only the coal industry but also potentially firearm and defense companies from similar “woke” corporate activism. He frames the ruling as a pivotal victory for economic and individual freedoms, curbing the influence of large investment firms’ progressive policies through concentrated proxy voting power.
Smith concludes that this antitrust victory may have far-reaching consequences for conservative and gun rights movements, since it may deter those with anti-Second Amendment agendas from trying the same tactics.
State Courts
District Court, Denver County, Colorado
Zachary Langston v. Heidi Humphreys: Filing ID BF37C5F2B4F05, Case No: 2025CV31185. This case filed on March 31, challenges Proposition KK that imposes a 6.5% excise tax on the retail sale of “any firearms, firearms precursor part, or ammunition.” The plaintiffs are seeking a declaratory judgment stating that Colorado’s 6.5% excise tax violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
