By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New —SCOTUS—no 2A cases granted or denied; next date for relisting—May 17; Two Decided Cases that have relevance to the Second Amendment: Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, et al.; Case Number: No. 24‑171; Precedent for PLCAA; Louisiana v. Calais: Case No: No. 24‑109: ends the system of forcing states into race‑based districting; Trump Department of Justice: DOJ letter to City of Denver regarding Denver’s illegal ordinance banning so-called “Assault Weapons;” Denver ban on so-called “assault weapons” challenged by DOJ.
SCOTUS
U.S. Court of Appeals Case Name: Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, et al.; Case Number: No. 24‑171
Core holding and vote
- The case resulted in a unanimous 9–0 decision reversing a $1 billion verdict and ruling that Cox is not liable solely for providing internet service to infringing users, as determined by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Mark W. Smith, a Second Amendment attorney (@FourBoxesDiner on X.com and the Four Boxes Diner on YouTube.com), who reviews current cases, has posted a YouTube video discussing the case’s relevance to the Second Amendment.
- The Supreme Court’s unanimous 9-0 ruling in Cox Communications v. Sony firmly reinforces protections for the gun industry against liability lawsuits. The decision clarifies that lawful product providers cannot be held responsible just because third parties misuse their products or services to commit illegal acts.
The Case Background
Sony Music Entertainment sued Cox Communications, an internet service provider, after some Cox customers illegally downloaded copyrighted Sony music and videos. Instead of suing the individual infringers, Sony sought a $1 billion verdict from Cox, arguing the company was liable because it knowingly provided internet access to copyright violators. The Fourth Circuit initially agreed with Sony’s case.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the unanimous Court, reversing the lower court decision. The Court held that “a company is not liable as a copyright infringer for merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights.” The decision heavily relied on the precedent from Sony v. Universal City Studios (the Betamax case), where Justice John Paul Stevens established that products “capable of substantial non-infringing uses” cannot create liability for manufacturers.
Second Amendment Implications
- This ruling closely follows the legal approach that anti-gun groups use when suing firearm manufacturers and dealers for criminal misuse of guns. The decision affirms the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects gun companies from liability for third-party criminal actions. Mark Smith states that gun industry defendants can now reference both the original Betamax precedent and this new Cox Communications decision to counter lawfare efforts.
- Smith noted that he predicted this outcome in a 2020 law review article titled “A Judicial Teaching Point: The Lesson of the Late Justice John Paul Stevens in Sony versus Universal City Studios as a Response to Civil Lawfare,” where he linked the Betamax precedent to Second Amendment protections. Now, the firearms industry has this additional SCOTUS precedent.
Louisiana v. Calais: Case No: No. 24‑109: Date decided: April 29, 2026.
Core holding and vote
- The Court, in a 6–3 opinion by Justice Alito, holds that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act cannot be applied in a way that requires states to intentionally use race to create additional majority‑minority congressional districts, because that violates the Equal Protection Clause and the Fifteenth Amendment.
- The majority says Section 2 was designed to enforce the Constitution “not collide with it,” and criticizes lower courts for forcing states into race‑based districting they see as unconstitutional.
What happened in Louisiana
- Louisiana has six House seats; its original map created five mostly white districts and one district likely to elect a Black Democrat.
- A federal district court, applying Section 2, ordered Louisiana to establish a second majority‑Black district, which the state did despite protest.
- That remedial map was then challenged as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander because the state openly drew the second district to ensure Black voters could elect another preferred candidate.
- The Supreme Court rules in favor of the challengers and states that following Section 2 (as interpreted by lower courts) is not a valid excuse for engaging in intentional race-based districting.
Practical and political consequences Mark W. Smith, Second Amendment attorney (@FourBoxesDiner on X.com and the Four Boxes Diner on YouTube.com ]
- Smith argues that roughly 8 to 18 House seats nationwide were created or preserved as safe Democratic seats through majority-minority districts justified under Section 2, and that this decision will enable many of those maps to be redrawn.
- He predicts immediate redistricting efforts in red or purple states such as Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana, with fewer guaranteed “islands” of Democratic representation in otherwise Republican‑leaning states.
Actual consequence: Published on SCOTUS Blog, dated May 4, 2026
- Two days after the Supreme Court released Louisiana v. Callais on Wednesday, “[t]he Republican governors of Tennessee and Alabama called state lawmakers into special sessions on Friday, initial steps in what could be a scramble across multiple southern states to redraw congressional maps” in response to the ruling, according to CBS News. “Depending on how state officials proceed and whether courts intervene, legislators may try to split up Tennessee’s sole Democratic district and eliminate one of Alabama’s two blue seats.” Tennessee’s primaries are currently scheduled for Aug. 6, and Alabama’s “are set for May 19.” “Beyond Alabama and Tennessee, legislators in Mississippi are planning to hold a special session to redraw the state’s Supreme Court districts. Some state officials have suggested also redrawing the state’s U.S. House maps to unseat Democratic Rep. Benny Thompson,” but “Mississippi has already held its primary elections.”
Trump Department of Justice
Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) letter to City of Denver regarding Denver’s illegal ordinance banning so-called “Assault Weapons.”
A publicly reported DOJ pre‑suit letter from Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon to Denver’s mayor and city attorney regarding Denver’s assault‑weapons ordinance, dated April 28, was sent and received by Denver. As background, Colorado has a preemption law, but everyone, including the Colorado state courts, is ignoring it.
The Letter
- The letter is a notice from AAG Harmeet Dhillon (Civil Rights Division, DOJ) to Denver Mayor Mike Johnston and City Attorney Miko Brown, informing them that the DOJ has authorized the filing of a federal civil lawsuit challenging Denver’s assault-weapons ban.
Key Second Amendment language in the letter
- Dhillon states that DOJ “has authorized the filing of a complaint in federal district court against the City and the Denver Police Department” alleging that Denver’s ban on AR‑15‑style firearms infringes on citizens’ Second Amendment rights.
- The letter states that “[t]he Ordinance bans many weapons, including AR‑15 style semiautomatic rifles,” and that “law‑abiding Americans own and use for lawful purposes literally tens of millions of AR‑15 style rifles. Indeed, it is the most popular rifle in America.”
- It concludes that “[t]he City has banned an arm in common use for lawful purposes by law‑abiding citizens. Therefore, the Ordinance violates the Second Amendment.”
Demands and proposed resolution
- The DOJ demands that Denver immediately stop enforcing the so-called assault weapon ban, recognize its unconstitutionality, and enter into a court-enforceable consent decree that permanently prevents the City and Denver Police from enforcing this or similar bans.
- The letter recommends postponing the lawsuit temporarily if the City agrees to start pre‑suit negotiations but clearly states that legal action is permitted and will continue if no agreement is reached. It also functions as a litigation hold, explicitly serving as a document‑retention notice for the City.
- We will continue to follow this DOJ action and report on Denver’s response to this complaint.
