As Tom reported earlier this week, the Department of Justice is trying to limit the scope of judicial relief in a case dealing with the right to keep and bear arms by arguing that if the plaintiffs are successful in challenging the statute, injunctive relief should only apply to the named plaintiffs in the case: two individuals and one Texas firearms retailer.
The Firearm Policy Coalition’s lawsuit challenges the ban on interstate handgun transfers, so there are obviously implications for every citizen who might want to purchase and possess a handgun when they’re visiting another state, instead of being forced to ship the handgun back to an in-state FFL before they can take possession.
In a reply brief filed on Tuesday, FPC argues that any injunctive relief should apply to organizational plaintiffs as well; i.e., FPC members who are not individually named in the complaint.
Under binding Supreme Court precedent, FPC has standing to sue on behalf of its members. Indeed, such associational standing is explicitly predicated on an organization’s ability to get relief for its injured members not personally before the court: “If in a proper case the association seeks a declaration, injunction, or some other form of prospective relief, it can reasonably be supposed that the remedy, if granted, will inure to the benefit of those members of the association actually injured.”
… This is not debatable. The Supreme Court reaffirmed associational standing two years ago. See Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard Coll., 143 S. Ct. 2141,2157–58 (2023). The Government’s contrary argument, premised on Trump v. CASA, 145 S. Ct.2540 (2025), cannot overcome this binding precedent. CASA directed that equitable relief be crafted to provide relief to the parties before the Court. It did nothing to limit the Court’s prior holdings indicating that providing relief to associational plaintiffs includes providing relief to its members, and unless the Supreme Court explicitly overrules that precedent, this Court is bound to follow it.
On the one hand, it’s not that surprising, or even unusual, for defendants to ask the court for as narrow a ruling as possible if they’re on the losing end of litigation.
On the other hand, this is a matter of constitutional concern. It’s disappointing enough that DOJ is defending the ban on interstate handgun transfers as, at worst, a minor imposition on the Second Amendment. If the court concludes that the statute is unconstitutional, at least as applied to the plaintiffs, then broad injunctive relief is the appropriate recourse, and a DOJ that is committed to protecting and preserving our Second Amendment rights should welcome a decision that provides that relief to as many people as possible.
In a statement, FPC head Brandon Combs went even further, arguing that the DOJ should stop enforcing the ban altogether if the judge rules in favor of the plaintiffs.
“As our brief explains, the DOJ’s new scheme to avoid following the Constitution must fail as a matter of law,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “Should we prevail against this unconstitutional ban, the court should enjoin its enforcement as broadly as possible and the Trump Administration should stop enforcing it altogether.”
FPC noted that the focus on injunctive relief with respect to FPC’s members is a consequence of the Supreme Court’s Trump v. CASA decision.
“The reason there is still no injunction against the federal government’s unconstitutional ban on handgun and ammunition sales to 18–20-year-old adults — even though the law was declared unconstitutional — is the DOJ’s injunction-avoidance scheme,” Combs explained, referring to FPC’s January victory in Reese v. ATF. “The Administration may desire a Supreme Court showdown on this issue, but it cannot ignore binding precedent today. The Administration should end this misguided strategy and begin following the Constitution without further delay.”
As Combs allued to, the DOJ delayed final judgement in Reese by seeking an extension of time to file a cert petition with the Supreme Court and then declining to file that petition at all. Both plaintiffs and defendants were supposed to submit their proposed judgment to the district court at the end of July, but there’s been no action from the court since that deadline has passed.
It’s almost like there are two DOJ’s at the moment. The Civil Rights Division is actively investigating abuses of our right to keep and bear arms in places like Los Angeles, and D.C.’s U.S. Attorney has pledged not to prosecute at least some people who are openly carrying some rifles and shotguns in the District. At the same time, the Justice Department is defending a number of constitutionally questionable statutes that directly affect our ability to keep and bear arms, including the Elite Precision lawsuit taking on the ban on interstate handgun transfers.
The DOJ isn’t as hostile to our Second Amendment rights as it was under Joe Biden and Merrick Garland, but it still has a way to go before its in full compliance with Donald Trump’s directive to review and rethink “positions taken by the United States in any and all ongoing and potential litigation that affects or could affect the ability of Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”
If the DOJ was following Trump’s executive order it shouldn’t be defending the statute at all, and it certainly wouldn’t be trying to limit the scope of relief if a judge determines the law violates our Second Amendment rights.
Editor’s Note: President Trump is doing everything he can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense, but we still have to be on guard for bureaucrats, officials, and politicians standing in his way..
Help us continue to report on these efforts. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
