Appeals court to trigger injunction against IL’s gun ban, or stay pending appeal

[December 04, 2024]  By Greg Bishop | The Center Square

(The Center Square) – Whether Illinois should be enjoined from enforcing the state’s gun and magazine ban starting Monday is now up to a federal appeals court.

Illinois enacted the Protect Illinois Communities Act in January 2023. The law prohibits the sale and possession of certain semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns, and magazines over certain capacities.

Litigation was filed in federal court challenging the law shortly after it was enacted with final judgement in the Southern District of Illinois federal court issued Nov. 8. District Judge Stephen McGlynn ruled that the state’s gun and magazine ban was unconstitutional and put a hold on an injunction for 30 days.

The state filed for an appeal with the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Nov. 12. On Nov. 14, the appeals court said the district judge’s ruling was deficient and asked for arguments why the appeal should not be remanded back for a clearer order.

On Nov. 15, the state filed its motion to stay the district judge’s injunction pending appeal. On Nov. 19, the appeals court gave the plaintiffs until Nov. 27 to file briefs responding to whether a stay on McGlynn’s injunction should be continued pending appeal.

In arguments for the district judge’s injunction to be held back while the case is being appealed, the state said the damage done to the public interest would be significant if they couldn’t enforce the gun ban and the damage done to plaintiffs by “preserving the status quo” of the ban being in place “would be minimal.”

“[Plaintiffs] will continue to be able to obtain a wide range of handguns, shotguns, and other weapons for self defense – including many semiautomatic firearms – and those plaintiffs that own assault weapons and [large capacity magazines] can continue to possess them,” the state said in its Nov. 15 filing.

Plaintiffs said that argument is wrong.

“[T]he Supreme Court has expressly rejected the argument ‘that it is permissible to ban the possession of [one type of protected firearm] so long as the possession of other firearms … is allowed,’” attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote.

Arguing an appeals court stay of McGlynn’s injunction be denied, plaintiffs said their rights to keep and bear arms are being infringed.

“The state warns of untold ‘tragedies’ that might befall the public if the district court’s injunction is not stayed,” the plaintiffs said. “But unlike the state’s infringement on plaintiffs’ constitutional rights – which is real and ongoing – the state supplies nothing but conjecture to support its submission that violence and mass shootings would suddenly skyrocket if this Court allows Illinois to return to the status quo that prevailed there for decades.”

Gun rights advocate Todd Vandermyde said the status quo should be where it was two years ago without a statewide gun ban.

A screenshot of various illustrations as part of Illinois' filing defending the state's gun and magazine ban - Greg Bishop / The Center Square

“And I think that’s what the court should be looking at,” Vandermyde told The Center Square. “You also have the irreparable harm of people being denied their ability to exercise part of their Second Amendment rights.”

To the arguments over whether the district judge’s ruling should be narrowly remanded back to the district court for a concise order, the state said in a separate filing that’s not necessary.

“[T]here is no need for a remand, as the parties’ rights and obligations are made sufficiently clear by the court’s opinion and prior orders,” the state said Monday in its filing. “If the court does issue a limited remand, it should either resolve defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal or enter an administrative stay while the case is remanded.”

Plaintiffs said they don’t mind if the court remands a narrow part of the case back to the district court for clarity.

“Plaintiffs do not oppose a limited remand so the district court may re-issue judgment in full compliance with Rule 65(d) should this Court prefer that course,” the filing said. “Plaintiffs accordingly have no objection to whichever way this Court prefers to proceed.”

It’s now up to the appeals court on whether the district judge’s injunction will kick in starting Dec. 9 or the ruling is stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

Vandermyde said on top of that, a separate case challenging Maryland’s gun ban could be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court soon.

“So in a couple of weeks we could hear if they’re going to take the case or not,” Vandermyde said. “They could relist it but if they do take the case, I think that puts our stuff on hold.”

On preliminary grounds, Illinois’ case was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year, but after a conference, Justice Clarence Thomas denied writs of certiorari, saying the case wasn’t on final judgement.

“Petitioners sought a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the law, arguing that the law violates their Second Amendment right to ‘keep and bear Arms.’” Thomas wrote. “This Court is rightly wary of taking cases in an interlocutory posture. But, I hope we will consider the important issues presented by these petitions after the cases reach final judgment.”

A challenge to Maryland's gun ban on final judgement is up for consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court. That case is on final judgement out of the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court could consider at their Dec. 13 conference whether to take the case.