SAF, FPC Look to Expand Court Ruling That Overturned Gun Ban for Young Adults

The Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition notched a big win for the Second Amendment rights of young adults in a case called Reese v. ATF, but the federal judge in Louisiana who concluded that the federal law banning licensed sales of handguns and handgun ammunition to law-abiding 18-to-20-year-old adults violates the Second Amendment only granted relief to a very narrow subset of that age group; only those members of the plaintiff organizations who were members when the judge issued his ruling, and only those living within the geographic borders of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Thanks to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. CASA, the judge was essentially unable to grant a nationwide injunction that would apply to under-21s across the country, but SAF and FPC argue in a new filing that the court could still grant relief to every affected member of the organizations, no matter where they live. 

The general principle of injunctive relief, reaffirmed many times by this Court and the Supreme Court, is that a district court should endeavor where possible to afford an injured party complete relief for their injuries. The Geographic Limitation deviates from this principle, by denying relief to the Plaintiff Organizations’ members in all but three states, for no good reason. To the extent that the district court was concerned with minimizing the burden on the Government by enjoining the law only in a place where the Government had asserted it was already declining to enforce it, that was error. The Government’s burden in complying with an injunction against violating the Constitution is not a valid reason to curtail the scope of injunctive relief. And to the extent the district court was concerned with granting a “universal injunction,” it need not have been. As the Supreme Court recently made clear, an injunction is not “universal” if it merely affords relief to the parties before it. Whether that relief is limited to the geographic boundaries of the Circuit where the suit was brought (or appealed) or across the country is simply irrelevant to those concerns.

The plaintiffs also argue that individuals who’ve joined SAF or FPC since the judgement was issued should also receive the same relief that was granted to existing members at the time of the judgment, declaring that the district court should have rejected the DOJ’s invocation of Article III limitations on the judiciary’s power and principles of equity to support limiting relief based on when members joined the organizations. 

As for Article III, the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the right of associations to sue to vindicate the rights of their members in much the same way it has permitted class representatives to sue on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals. Just as people can become members of a class after a class is certified and still enjoy the benefits of injunctive relief afforded to the class (often by design), so too can individuals who become members of an organization after a complaint is filed or after judgment is entered without running afoul of Article III limitations—indeed, in some cases, including school desegregation or affirmative action cases, that is necessary to make relief meaningful.

The DOJ, which announced its intent to appeal the district court decision back in March, has yet to file its opening brief with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I’m curious how the agency will respond to SAF and FPC’s request to expand the scope of relief, but I’m also interested to see what the Supreme Court does with the almost half-dozen cases involving sales and carry bans for under-21s that its been holding onto for several months. The cases are all listed for consideration in this week’s wrap-up conference for the term, and my guess is that they’ll be granted cert, have the lower court opinions vacated, and remanded back to the appellate courts for a do-over in light of the Court’s findings in Hemani and Wolford. It would be great if the Court would actually hear one of these cases now, but if the current challenges pending before SCOTUS are all sent back down, then Reese could be the next age-based 2A case to reach the justices… at least if the DOJ chooses to defend the ban on handgun sales to under-21s before the Fifth Circuit. 

Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.