In the first quarter of 2025, the National Rifle Association filed three new lawsuits and five amicus briefs, while continuing to litigate dozens of ongoing lawsuits across the country. NRA counsel also published a law review article, drafted an op-ed, and posted a new video in the Legal Scholar Video Series.
New Cases
In January, the NRA joined Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation and Safari Club International in filing U.S. Sportsman’s Alliance Foundation v. Bureau of Land Management, a challenge to the BLM’s near-prohibition on recreational shooting on the Sonoran Desert National Monument, which covers nearly 500,000 acres in Arizona.
In February, the NRA filed Escher v. Noble—along with the Gun Owners’ Action League, Commonwealth Second Amendment, Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, and an NRA member—which challenges Massachusetts’s prohibition on the possession and carry of handguns and semiautomatic firearms by adults under 21.
In March, the NRA filed Langston v. Humphreys—along with the Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, Colorado State Shooting Association, Magnum Shooting Center, and an NRA member—which challenges Colorado’s 6.5% excise tax on the sale of firearms, firearm precursor parts, and ammunition.
Ongoing Litigation
Duncan v. Bonta is an NRA-backed challenge to California’s prohibition on standard magazines capable of holding over 10 rounds. In 2023, a federal district court held that California’s ban violates the Second Amendment. But in March, the en banc Ninth Circuit upheld the ban in a 7-4 decision. The majority concluded that magazines are “accessories” rather than “arms,” and even if they were arms, the ban is consistent with historical regulations that prohibited “especially dangerous uses of weapons.” The four dissenting judges argued that the ban is unconstitutional. We will now petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.
We challenged Florida’s ban on firearm purchases by adults under 21 in NRA v. Bondi. In March, the en banc Eleventh Circuit upheld the ban in an 8-4 decision. Soon after the court issued its decision, Florida’s Attorney General James Uthmeier announced this his office would not defend the law if we seek further review at the U.S. Supreme Court. We will soon be petitioning the Supreme Court to hear the case.
Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Attorney Gen. New Jersey is our challenge to New Jersey’s ban on “assault firearms” and standard 10+ round magazines. In July 2024, the district court upheld the magazine ban while holding the “assault firearm” ban unconstitutional as applied to the Colt AR-15. All parties appealed to the Third Circuit. In February 2025, the briefing at the Third Circuit was completed, and we are now waiting for the court to schedule oral arguments.
In January, briefing was completed in the Tenth Circuit in Ortega v. Grisham, our challenge to New Mexico’s 7-day waiting period for firearm purchases. The court scheduled oral arguments for May 13, 2025.
In response to NRA’s landmark victory in NYSRPA v. Bruen, several states enacted “Bruen-response” laws, labeling dozens of locations throughout the state “sensitive places” where carry is forbidden. Maryland enacted one such law. We challenged this law in the Maryland District Court in Kipke v. Moore. On August 2, 2024, the court held unconstitutional the carry ban at buildings on private property unless the owner expressly provides permission; locations selling alcohol (including bars and restaurants); and property within 1,000 feet of a public demonstration. But the court upheld the rest of the ban. Both the government and we appealed the decision to the Fourth Circuit. We completed the briefing on appeal in February, and the court set oral arguments for May 7, 2025.
In LaFave v. County of Fairfax, the NRA-backed challenge to Fairfax County’s ban on carrying firearms in county parks, the briefing was completed in January and the Fourth Circuit set oral arguments for May 7, 2025.
The district court stayed our challenge to Pennsylvania’s ban on concealed carry by adults under 21, Young v. Ott, until the Third Circuit decided Lara v. Paris. In January, the Third Circuit decided Lara, ruling that adults under 21 are part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment, that they have a right to bear arms, and that the most relevant period in a Second Amendment analysis is 1791 (not 1868)—this is powerful precedent for our case. Now that Lara has been decided, our case is moving forward again at the district court.
In February, we survived a motion to dismiss in NYSRPA v. James, our challenge to New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act. The case will now proceed in the district court.
The district court in Butler v. Garland—our challenge to the Biden ATF’s “engaged in the business” rule—stayed the case while the Trump administration reconsiders the government’s position on the rule.
In January, our challenge to Washington’s prohibition on “assault weapons,” Banta v. Ferguson, was stayed by the Ninth Circuit pending the outcome of our challenge to California’s magazine ban (Duncan v. Bonta) and a challenge to California’s “assault weapons” ban.
On November 21, 2023, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit held Maryland’s Handgun Qualification License unconstitutional in our case, Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore. But then the court reheard the case en banc and ruled that the HQL requirement does not even implicate the Second Amendment. We petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case, but the Court declined our petition on January 13, 2025.
Amicus Briefs
The NRA filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari in B&L Productions v. Newsom, a challenge to California’s prohibition on firearm sales on state property. The Ninth Circuit upheld the ban, concluding that restrictions on firearm purchases implicate the Second Amendment only if they “meaningfully constrain” the right to possess arms. The plaintiffs then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari. The NRA filed its brief on January 2, 2025, arguing that: (1) lower courts are divided over whether the Second Amendment protects firearm purchases and that the Court should grant certiorari to establish that it does; (2) Britain’s prohibition on arms commerce sparked the Revolutionary War, and the Founders deliberately protected arms commerce when creating their own government; and (3) certiorari should be granted to cabin the Ninth Circuit’s concerted resistance to the Second Amendment.
In Antonyuk v. James, the NRA urged the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a challenge to New York’s “Concealed Carry Improvement Act”—which, far from improving carry, severely restricts the ability to carry firearms throughout the state. NRA’s amicus brief highlights the split among the lower courts over which period—1791 or 1868—is most relevant in Second Amendment analyses and argues that the Court’s precedents make clear that 1791 is the most relevant period.
The NRA also filed an amicus brief in Lowy v. Daniel Defense, where the plaintiffs are attempting to hold firearm manufacturers liable for a shooting committed by an unrelated third-party due to their pro-Second Amendment social media posts. The brief argues that the case, at its core, is an attempt to censor the manufacturer’s pro-Second Amendment speech, which is protected by the First Amendment.
The NRA filed an amicus brief in Schoenthal v. Raoul, a challenge to Illinois’s ban on carrying firearms on public transportation before the Seventh Circuit. The brief argues that there is no historical tradition of banning firearms on public transportation. First, while some private railroad companies barred passengers from carrying firearms, no government regulation ever did. Second, history shows that carrying could be barred only in places where government deliberations were held (e.g., courthouses and legislative buildings), which does not support the public transit ban.
Hanson v. District of Columbia is a challenge to the District’s ban on standard magazines that hold over 10 rounds. After the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the ban is likely constitutional and denied a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. NRA filed an amicus brief supporting the petition, arguing that the Court’s precedents make clear that bans on common arms—including the magazines the District bans—violate the Second Amendment.
Other Firearms-Related Litigation Across the Country
Important developments occurred in two cases that are not backed by the NRA, but in which the NRA filed amicus briefs last year.
In Bondi v. VanDerStok, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision upheld the ATF’s 2022 “frame or receiver” rule, which redefined the Gun Control Act of 1968’s definition of “firearm” to include precursors of frames or receivers and weapon parts kits.
On March 4, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos—the Mexican government’s lawsuit attempting to hold American firearm manufacturers liable for cartel violence in Mexico. A decision in the case is expected by June of this year.
Legal Scholar Video Series
In the latest installment of the NRA’s Legal Scholar Video Series, NRA-ILA Litigation Director Joseph Greenlee interviewed legal historian Robert J. Cottrol about his award-winning book, To Trust the People with Arms: The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment.
Articles
NRA-ILA Litigation Director Joseph Greenlee, David Kopel, and Bhav Nindar Singh published an article in the South Texas Law Review entitled, The Social Cost of Nullifying the Right to Arms: The Case of Mexico. The article: (1) describes the cartel crime problem in Mexico and how the Mexican government has often made it worse; (2) examines the nullification of Mexico’s constitutional right to arms; (3) looks at the Mexican government’s suppression of community defense militias; and (4) details the evidence that American-made firearms lawfully sold in America have little if anything to do with Mexico’s crime problems.
An amicus brief filed in support of the Mexican government in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos attempted to refute arguments presented in the NRA’s amicus brief. Joseph Greenlee and David Kopel replied to that brief in an article on the Volokh Conspiracy.
Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org for future updates on NRA-ILA’s ongoing efforts to defend your constitutional rights, and please visit https://www.nraila.org/legal-legislation/current-litigation/ to keep up to date on NRA-ILA’s ongoing litigation efforts.
More Like This From Around The NRA
