By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Department of Justice: Case No: 1:215-cv-01535s: This case was brought by a coalition of left-wing groups and centers on the Trump administration’s decision to rescind approximately $800 million in federal grants. New Jersey: Second Circuit: Lily Hague v. Phil Murphy: Case No. 3:25-cv-08826: This case was filed on June 9, This lawsuit asks the f Kansas: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit: United States v. Tamara Morgan: Case No: 24-3141: On Sept. 20, 2024, the United States filed a notice of appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging the district court’s dismissal of the charges. After much back and forth, an oral argument was set for July 8. The oral argument was held, and Mark W. Smith at the Four Boxes Diner has a video about it on YouTube.com.
District Court
D.C. Circuit: DC
Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Department Of Justice: Case No: 1:215-cv-01535s
This case was brought by a coalition of left-wing groups and centerson the Trump administration’s decision, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, to rescind approximately $800 million in federal grants. These grants were originally allocated for violence prevention and community safety programs, with roughly $150 million specifically stemming from the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, a gun control bill signed by President Joe Biden in 2022. The funds were distributed through the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs to various nonprofit and community organizations, many of which Smith characterizes as supporting gun control or anti-Second Amendment initiatives.
This coalition of organizations sued the Department of Justice, arguing that the abrupt cancellation of these grants was unlawful. The case was heard by Judge Amit Mehta, an appointee of President Barack Obama, who is noted for previous rulings against Trump and for his service on the FISA court. Despite his background, Judge Mehta ruled against the plaintiffs and in favor of the Trump administration, upholding the grant cancellations.
However, in his opinion, Judge Mehta acknowledged the terminations were “unfair and indiscriminate” and likely to harm communities and individuals vulnerable to crime and violence. However, he emphasized that courts are limited by the law and cannot act without proper jurisdiction or a valid cause of action. Judge Mehta concluded that, although he disapproved of the policy, there was no legal basis to overturn the administration’s decision; thus, the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction was denied, and the case was dismissed.
In a YouTube video by Mark W. Smith, Second Amendment attorney, frames this outcome as a substantial win for the Second Amendment movement, arguing that the withdrawal of such a large sum of federal funding from organizations he believes are hostile to gun rights will weaken the “anti-gun” lobby. He notes that the combined budgets of all major pro-Second Amendment organizations pale in comparison to the $800 million in question, underscoring the scale of the funding that has now been cut off.
The Democracy Forward Foundation can appeal this decision to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
New Jersey: Second Circuit
Lily Hague v. Phil Murphy: Case No. 3:25-cv-08826: This case was filed on June 9, 2025, in the District Court of New Jersey by Lily Hague, The Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., and the New Jersey Firearms Syndicate. This lawsuit asks the federal courts to allow the lawful acquisition, possession, and carrying of handguns in New Jersey by adults 19 to 20 years of age. They are asking for an injunction against the State of New Jersey and U.S. law banning those adults from acquiring, possessing, and carrying handguns. They seek a declaratory judgment that the restrictions in 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1), 18 U.S.C. §924(a)(l)(D), 18 U.S.C. § 922(c), 27 C.F.R. § 478.99(b)(1) against individuals between 18 and 20 years of age seeking acquire handguns and handgun ammunition for lawful purposes are unconstitutional on their face and as applied to Plaintiff Hague and the similarly situated members and supporters of the Institutional Plaintiffs;
Courts of Appeals (Circuit Court)
Kansas: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
United States v. Tamara Morgan: Case No: 24-3141 On Sept. 20, 2024, the United States filed a notice of appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging the district court’s dismissal of the charges. After much back and forth, an oral argument was set for last week, July 8. The oral argument was held, and Mark W. Smith has a video about it on YouTube.com. During that argument, the DOJ argued in favor of the current law on machine guns.
District Court
USA v. Tamori Morgan: Case No: 6-23-cr-10047-JWB: On April 18, 2023, Tamori Morgan was charged with two counts of possessing a machinegun, specifically including a Glock switch, which converts a semi-automatic firearm into a fully automatic one.
Defendant’s Motion: On Nov. 27, 2023, Morgan filed a motion to dismiss the charges on Second Amendment grounds, arguing that § 922(o) violates the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the U.S. Constitution, particularly in light of recent Supreme Court precedent.
District Court Ruling: On August 26, 2024, U.S. District Judge John W. Broomes granted Morgan’s motion to dismiss. The court applied the framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen(2022), which requires courts to assess whether firearm regulations are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court found that:
- The machinegun and Glock switch in Morgan’s case were “bearable arms” covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment.
- The government failed to provide sufficient historical analogs to demonstrate that the prohibition on machineguns under § 922(o) aligns with historical firearm regulations, as required by Bruen and clarified in United States v. Rahimi (2024).
- The court rejected the government’s reliance on dicta from District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which suggested machineguns might not be protected, noting that machineguns were not directly at issue in Heller and that Bruen mandates a historical analysis.
- The court dismissed Morgan’s facial challenge to § 922(o) (which would require showing the law is unconstitutional in all applications) but granted his as-applied challenge, finding the government did not meet its burden to justify the restriction in this case.
Outcome: The charges against Morgan were dismissed on Second Amendment grounds, and a related motion to dismiss on Commerce Clause grounds was denied as moot.
