Chip In $10

Last Updated: December 10, 2019

U.S. Supreme Court

Granted

New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. New York City

  • No. 18-280
  • Summary: Right to transport a weapon outside the city limits. Respondents argue case is moot; Court said that mootness is to be taken up at argument.
  • Question(s) presented: 
    • Whether the City's ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.
  • FPC, et al. brief in support
  • Next action: Oral arguments held Dec. 2, 2019; submitted

Pending/Held

Mance v. Barr

  • No. 18-663
  • Cert. petition filed: Nov. 19 2018
  • Summary: Right to transfer handguns to out-of-state residents. The 5th Circuit found that the restriction is not a violation of the Second Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause.     
  • Question(s) presented: 
    • [W]hether prohibiting interstate handgun sales, facially or as-applied to consumers whose home jurisdictions authorize such transactions, violates the Second Amendment and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
  • Next action: Distributed for Conference of April 12, 2019

Rogers v. Grewal

  • No. 18-824
  • Cert. petition filed: Dec. 20 2018
  • Summary: Right to carry a firearm outside of the home. 3rd Circuit upheld New Jersey’s law.  
  • Question(s) presented: 
    • Whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense.
    • Whether the government may deny categorically the exercise of the right to carry a firearm outside the home to typical law-abiding citizens by conditioning the exercise of the right on a showing of a special need to carry a firearm. 
  • Next action: Distributed for Conference of May 23, 2019

Pena v. Horan

  • No. 18-843
  • Cert. petition filed: Dec. 28 2018
  • Summary: Challenge to California's Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA), which created a roster of handguns determined to be “not unsafe” and bans handguns determined to be “unsafe”. The 9th Circuit found that intermediate scrutiny is proper, and public safety concerns outweighed the handgun requirements limitations on access.  
  • Question(s) presented: 
    • The question presented is whether California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act,” Cal. Penal Code § 31900 et seq., violates the Second Amendment by banning handguns of the kind in common use for traditional lawful purposes.
  • FPC, et al. brief in support.
  • Next action: Distributed for Conference of April 12, 2019

Gould v. Lipson

  • No. 18-1272
  • Cert. petition filed: Apr. 1 2019
  • Summary: Right to carry a firearm outside of the home. 1st Circuit found that intermediate scrutiny was appropriate and Massachusetts’ laws do not violate the Second Amendment.  
  • Question(s) presented: 
    • Whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense.   
    •  Whether the government may deny categorically the exercise of the right to carry a firearm outside the home to typical law-abiding citizens by conditioning the exercise of the right on a showing of a special need to carry a firearm. 
  • Next action: Distributed for Conference of June 6, 2019

Cheeseman v. Polillo

  • No. 19-27
  • Cert. petition filed: Jun. 28 2019
  • Summary: Right to carry a firearm outside of the home. Superior Court of New Jersey found that the law does not violate the Second Amendment.  
  • Question(s) presented: 
    • Whether States can limit the ability to bear handguns outside the home to only those found to have a sufficiently heightened “need” for self-protection.
  • FPC, et al. brief in support.
  • Next action: Distributed for Conference of Oct. 18, 2019.

Ciolek v. New Jersey

  • No. 19-114
  • Cert. petition filed: Jul. 18 2019
  • Summary: Right to carry a firearm outside of the home. New Jersey Appellate Division found that intermediate scrutiny was appropriate and that the NJ “may issue” law did not violate the Second Amendment. New Jersey Supreme Court denied certiorari.   
  • Question(s) presented: 
    • Whether the legislative requirement of “justifiable need” for a permit to carry a handgun in public violates the Second Amendment.
  • Next action: Distributed for Conference of Oct. 1, 2019.

In Briefing (cert. stage)

Guedes v. ATF

  • No. 19-296
  • Cert. petition filed: Aug. 29 2019
  • Summary: Challenge to Trump Admin. bump-stock ban by executive fiat. D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction over a strong dissent by Judge Henderson.
  • Question(s) presented: 
    • Whether Chevron deference, rather than the rule of lenity, takes precedence in the interpretation of statutory language defining an element of various crimes where such language also has administrative applications?
    • Whether, if Chevron deference applies and takes priority over the rule of lenity, such deference can be waived in the course of litigation and on appeal?
    • Whether, if Chevron deference applies and cannot be waived, Chevron should be overruled?
  • FPC et al. brief in support
  • Next action: Petitioners' reply due

Worman v. Healey

  • No. 19-404
  • Cert. petition filed: Sept. 23 2019
  • Summary: Ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. 1st Circuit affirmed bans as constitutional.    
  • Question(s) presented: 
    • Does Massachusetts’ ban unconstitutionally infringe the individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment? 
  • FPC et al. brief in support
  • Next action: Petitioners' reply due

Malpasso v. Pallozzi

  • No. 19-423
  • Cert. petition filed: Sept. 26 2019
  • Summary: Maryland “may issue” laws. 4th Circuit found people only have a right to self-defense inside their home.     
  • Question(s) presented: 
    • Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit typical, law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense in any manner. 
  • FPC et al. brief in support
  • Next action: Response in opposition due Dec. 18, 2019

Denied

Daniel v. Armslist Wisc.

  • No. 19-153
  • Cert. petition filed: Jul. 29 2019
  • Summary: Company immunity under the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230. Supreme Court of Wisconsin found that Armslist was immune from civil liability.
  • Question(s) presented: 
    • Does the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230’s prohibition on treating providers of interactive computer services as publishers or speakers of third party information posted on their sites, bar states from imposing civil liability on website owners or operators for their own design, content and conduct intended to facilitate and profit from tortious or criminal activity (as the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the First Circuit, and other courts have held), or does it bar only those claims that seek to impose liability on website owners or operators for third-party posts (like the Washington Supreme Court, and the Seventh and Ninth Circuits have held)?
  • Next action: n/a 

Medina v. Barr

  • No. 19-287
  • Cert. petition filed: Aug. 30 2019
  • Summary: Felon right to a firearm.  D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court’s rejection of as-applied challenge.  
  • Question(s) presented: 
    • Whether the Second Amendment secures Jorge Medina’s right to possess arms, notwithstanding his conviction for making a false statement to a lending institution 29 years ago. 
  • FPC et al. brief in support.  
  • Next action: N/A

Remington Arms v. Soto

  • No. 19-168
  • Cert. petition filed: Aug. 1 2019
  • Summary: Firearm manufacturer immunity from civil liability. The Connecticut Supreme Court found that the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”) does not shield Remington Arms from liability.  
  • Question(s) presented: 
    • The question presented is whether the PLCAA’s predicate exception encompasses alleged violations of broad, generally applicable state statutes, such as the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, which forbids “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(a). 
  • FPC, et al. brief in support.
  • Next action: N/A

Armament Services v. Barr

  • No. 18-1561
  • Cert. petition filed: June 19, 2019
  • Summary: Revocation of firearms license. The 3rd Circuit denied motion to reverse dismissal on summary judgement.    
  • Question(s) presented: 
    • Whether the Third Circuit applied an improperly deferential standard of review in a de novo federal firearms licensing proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 923(f)(3), when determining whether Petitioners “willfully” violated any provisions of the Gun Control Act. 
    • Whether the Third Circuit, while imputing the alleged conduct of a former officer of a federal firearms licensee to the company and its new president, inconsistently and improperly denied them the same statutory safeguards and protections regarding licensing decisions guaranteed to that former officer under 18 U.S.C. § 923(f)(4). 
  • Next action: N/A

Miller v. Ferguson

  • No. 19-121
  • Cert. petition filed: July 23, 2019
  • Summary: Revocation of firearms license. The 9th Circuit denied to reverse the lower court's decision.   
  • Question(s) presented: 
    • Is the following question one that jurists of reason would find debatable?
    • Does the total prohibition on the exercise of a person’s fundamental Second Amendment right to keep a firearm in one’s home for purposes of self-defense constitute the type of “severe restraint on liberty” described in Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345, 351 (1973) which satisfies the habeas corpus custody requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
  • Next action: N/A