Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup
Next Post: Selected press releases (Live updates)
Posted in:
* News…
JUST IN: As expected, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has put a halt on last month's ruling, by a federal judge in the Southern District of Illinois, that Illinois' assault weapons ban is unconstitutional.
Background here: https://t.co/ODuc9jAz54 pic.twitter.com/lBmmxiD8kH
— Jon Seidel (@SeidelContent) December 5, 2024
* The order…
The district court issued an opinion holding that multiple state laws regulating assault weapons, large-capacity magazines, and associated matters are unconstitutional. The opinion contains some language in the nature of a permanent injunction, but this language does not appear in either an injunction (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1) (”Every order granting an injunction… must: (A) state the reasons why it issued; (B) state its terms specifically; and (C) describe in reasonable detail- and not by referring to the complaint or other document —the act or acts restrained or required. )) or a Rule 58 judgment (which omits the relief to which the prevailing parties are entitled).
Defendants have appealed, and they request a stay pending appeal. Plaintiffs have responded, and defendants have replied. The parties also have filed memoranda addressing the problems created by the district court’s noncompliance with Rules 58 and 65.
Appellate jurisdiction exists, notwithstanding these errors, because it is plain that the district court is done with the case. Compliance with Rules 58 and 65 remains necessary -essential, if any litigant anticipates enforcing the decision through the contempt power —and we trust that the district court will enter appropriate orders promptly without the need for a formal command by this court.
Defendants’ request for a stay rests largely on the fact that this court already has held that the laws in question survive motions seeking preliminary injunctions. Bevis o. Naperville, 85 F.4th 1175 (7th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 2491 (2024). A decision at the preliminary-injunction stage is not dispositive when the plaintiffs later seek permanent relief; our opinion indicated some matters that needed further exploration. But the analysis in Bevis shows that the laws have enough support to remain in place pending the final resolution of plaintiffs’ suit.
Every other court of appeals that has addressed the validity of similar legislation in the wake of New York State Rifle Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), has come out the same way as Bevis. See Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. Rhode Island, 95 F.4th 38 (1st Cir. 2024); Bianchi v. Brown, 111 F.4th 438 (4th Cir. 2024) (en banc); Hanson v. Smith, 120 F .4th 223 (D.C. Cir. 2024). The laws addressed by those decisions differ in some respects from the Illinois statute. Yet the absence of support in other circuits for the district court’s disposition lends strength to a conclusion that the Illinois statutes should remain in force until final appellate resolution.
At least two other essentially identical suits are pending in other district courts within the Seventh Circuit. The three suits were addressed jointly in Bevis, and they must be resolved the same way eventually. (The state laws cannot be valid in some parts of Illinois and invalid elsewhere.) This does not necessarily imply that the three cases will again be consolidated on appeal; we are reluctant to delay disposition of this appeal indefinitely just because similar litigation is pending in other districts. Still, the only way to preserve the status quo statewide is to enter a stay in this suit.
The judgment of the district court accordingly is stayed. The stay will remain in force until this court has issued its mandate.
…Adding… AG Raoul…
Attorney General Kwame Raoul today issued the following statement after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit stayed an injunction a district court entered regarding the Protect Illinois Communities Act. The stay will remain in place while the appeal is pending.
“I am pleased the 7th Circuit has stayed the district court’s injunction. My office will continue to prosecute the appeal, and the Protect Illinois Communities Act remains the law of the land as the litigation is pending in the lower courts. The Protect Illinois Communities Act is an important tool to prevent weapons of war from being used in our schools and on our streets, and I am committed to defending its constitutionality.”
* ISRA…
Please attribute the following to the Illinois State Rifle Association
Moments ago, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order extending the stay of Judge McGlynn’s decision finding the Illinois Gun Ban to be unconstitutional. The stay remains in place until the 7th Circuit can hear the case, which means that the unconstitutional gun ban continues to remain in effect.
While we are glad that Federal District Court Judge Stephen McGlynn’s stay would have expired on Sunday, December 8th, we are disappointed – but not surprised – that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has extended that stay. Back in November, we were victorious when Judge McGlynn found the provisions of the Illinois ban on commonly owned firearms and accessories known as “PICA” to be unconstitutional. The State appealed immediately to the Seventh Circuit, so we also know that this battle is far from over.
When this unconstitutional bill was signed by Gov. Pritzker in January 2023, we promised to see the State of Illinois in Court – and we’ve held firm on that promise – and we won’t back down until our 2nd Amendment rights are restored in Illinois.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 4:41 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup
Next Post: Selected press releases (Live updates)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Quite a mish-mash of an order. The 7th fails to note that SCOTUS overturned Maryland’s rifle ban on appeal for failing to comply with Bruen, sending the case back down for another try at complying with the 2nd Amendment. But because the IL trial court goofed up under the rules, the 7th can do what it did, since the trial court issued a final ruling under the Rules.
Comment by thisjustinagain Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 5:22 pm
>> The 7th fails to note that SCOTUS overturned Maryland’s rifle ban on appeal for failing to comply with Bruen, sending the case back down for another try at complying with the 2nd Amendment.
Cite / source, please.
Comment by ZC Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 10:29 pm
It’s the legal equivalent of additional time in soccer. Barring an absolutely shocking about face from SCOTUS, it’s just a matter of when, not if, the Illinois law is overturned.
Looking at the panel, Frank Easterbrook may not get to write the next opinion.
But even if he can persuade St. Eve to go along with his absurd legal needle-threading under which Bruen and Heller somehow allow states to ban any weapons they deem too dangerous, a date with Clarence Thomas, et. al., still awaits
Comment by JB13 Friday, Dec 6, 24 @ 11:15 am
===absurd legal needle-threading under which Bruen and Heller ===
That sentence is backwards.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Dec 6, 24 @ 11:41 am
===Barring an absolutely shocking about face from SCOTUS===
One wonders if CEOs being assassinated in midtown Manhattan moves the needle at all
Comment by Suburban Mom Friday, Dec 6, 24 @ 12:11 pm