MERRY CHRISTMAS
By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New— Schoenthal v. Raoul, Case No. 25-541: The Supreme Court has ordered Illinois officials to file a prompt response in this case; U.S. Department of Justice: On December 16, 2025, the U.S. Justice Department filed a complaint against the Virgin Islands Police Department (VIPD), alleging that the territory’s unreasonable delays and conditions placed on lawful gun owners’ rights create an unconstitutional permitting process in violation of the Second Amendment; United States v. Cockerham, Case No. No. 24-60401: A Fifth Circuit decision ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to a nonviolent “debtor-type” offender whose prior conviction shows no threat.
SCOTUS
Schoenthal v. Raoul, Case No. 25-541: A Petition for Writ of Certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court on Oct. 31, by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition seeking review of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision. The case centers on whether broad restrictions on public transportation are historically supported under the Second Amendment, as interpreted in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. It is a constitutional challenge to Illinois’ public transportation carry ban, currently pending before the Supreme Court under district case number 3:22-cv-50326 and appeal number 24-2643. The panel of judges includes Ripple, St. Eve, and Kolar.
The Supreme Court has directed Illinois officials to submit a prompt response in a significant Second Amendment case challenging the state’s recent “assault weapon” and magazine restrictions. Mark W. Smith, @thefourboxesdiner, interprets this as a strong signal that some justices are taking these challenges seriously and may be preparing to intervene more assertively in lower-court resistance to Bruen.
Over the course of about eighteen minutes, Smith places this order within the larger post-Bruen litigation landscape, emphasizing how states like Illinois, California, and others have implemented sweeping bans and licensing regimes that he argues directly oppose the original public understanding of the Second Amendment. Meanwhile, many lower courts use delay tactics, strained historical analogies, and procedural maneuvers to uphold those laws despite guidance from the Supreme Court.
This SCOTUS request is not a ruling on the merits. Still, it is stronger than a simple denial and often indicates that at least one justice is seriously considering granting certiorari, issuing a stay, or granting some other relief. Second Amendment litigants have grown frustrated as core challenges to bans on AR‑15–style rifles and standard‑capacity magazines languish for years in the lower courts, during which residents must either comply with registration and ban schemes or risk felony prosecution- a dynamic known as “rights delayed are rights denied.”
U.S. Department of Justice
On Dec. 16, the U.S. Justice Department filed a complaint against the Virgin Islands Police Department (VIPD), alleging that the territory’s unreasonable delays and conditions placed on lawful gun owners’ rights create an unconstitutional permitting process in violation of the Second Amendment. Several applicants reported that VIPD is unreasonably delaying their gun permit application decisions and imposing unreasonable conditions, such as bolted-in gun safes, before issuing gun licenses. Additionally, VIPD continues to enforce a proper cause regulation that is nearly identical to the law the U.S. Supreme Court previously struck down in Bruen.
“This Civil Rights Division will protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “The newly-established Second Amendment Section filed this lawsuit to bring the Virgin Islands Police Department back into legal compliance by ensuring that applicants receive timely decisions without unconstitutional obstruction.”
“The territory’s firearms licensing laws and practices are inconsistent with the Second Amendment,” said U.S. Attorney Adam Sleeper for the District of the U.S. Virgin Islands. “This lawsuit seeks to uphold the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms in the U.S. Virgin Islands.”
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi).
United States v. Cockerham; Case No. No. 24-60401. The decision arises from the Fifth Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi). It involves § 922(g)(1), which bars firearm possession by anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison.
A Fifth Circuit decision ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to a nonviolent “debtor-type” offender whose prior conviction shows no threat. It highlights that Congress’s broad felony trigger can permanently remove people’s gun rights based on legal charges rather than actual violence. Under this rule, someone can be labeled a “felon” and lose gun rights for life even if they never served a day in prison, as long as the maximum penalty was more than a year.
Edward Cockerham’s prior “felony” was failure to pay child support in Mississippi, punishable by up to five years, though he later paid the arrears and never went to prison. After he was found with two firearms and pleaded guilty to a § 922(g)(1) count, he preserved an as‑applied Second Amendment challenge, arguing that nonpayment of child support is nonviolent and historically not a basis for disarmament.
Judge Ho’s majority opinion
In a 2–1 opinion authored by Judge James Ho, the court ruled that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to Cockerham. It emphasized that felon status alone is not enough to justify a lifelong disarmament. The opinion applies Bruen’s framework, which requires the government to identify historical analogues, and notes that the Supreme Court’s references to felon-in-possession laws as “presumptively lawful” do not exempt the government from this requirement.
Judge Ho, echoing Justice Gorsuch, warns that modern overcriminalization makes the constitutional issue worse when a lifetime firearm ban is imposed for broad categories of nonviolent conduct. The decision distinguishes between founding-era felonies—mainly crimes considered malum in se like murder, rape, robbery, assault, and battery—and today’s widespread nonviolent, regulatory felonies and malum prohibitum offenses. The government cited founding-era theft laws and debtor’s prisons as analogues to justify disarming Cockerham, but the court rejected these because debtor’s prisons ended once debts were paid, and Cockerham had not stolen but merely failed to pay a debt he later satisfied. Judge Ho concluded that history supports disarming violent criminals but not stripping Second Amendment rights solely due to felon status, while Judge Higginson dissented only to suggest remanding for more historical fact-finding rather than granting full as-applied relief on the existing record.
