The U.S. Supreme Court has recently declined a request from Missouri to reinstate a state law barring law enforcement from enforcing federal restrictions on gun sales and ownership that Missouri deems at odds with the Second Amendment. The original appeal was in light of a judgement passed earlier this year by a federal judge, who deemed the state law itself as unconstitutional, effectively blocking the state from imposing the law. The unsigned order from the Supreme Court leaves this decision in place while the state continues to debate the issue in lower courts.
Justice Clarence Thomas was revealed to have been in favour of going ahead with Missouri’s request. Fellow justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch added context to their comprehension of the lower court’s order, without providing explicit support or dissent to Missouri’s request.
The law, christened the Second Amendment Preservation Act, was signed by Missouri Governor Mike Parson in 2021. According to the Act, local law enforcement officials cannot enforce federal firearms laws deemed unconstitutional by the state. This includes federal laws concerning the registration of certain firearms, the imposition of sales limitations, as well as restrictions as to who can legally own a firearm. Violations of this law could incur fines of up to $50,000.
The federal government responded to this Act by suing Missouri in February 2022, in an attempt to prevent the state from enforcing the law. Brian Boynton, the acting heading of the Justice Department’s Civil Division, publicly stated that individual states cannot invalidate federal laws. By his appraisal, Missouri’s law hinders the execution of federal firearms laws and disrupts crucial law enforcement partnerships aimed at removing violent criminals from the streets.
In March 2023, U.S. District Judge Brian Wimes ruled that Missouri’s law violated the Constitution’s supremacy clause, stating that state laws cannot overpower federal laws. He prohibited Missouri from enforcing the Second Amendment Preservation Act. The 8th U.S. Court of Appeals rejected the suspension of this order in late September, which would have allowed Missouri to enforce the law during its appeal against the decision.
As a result, Missouri appealed to the Supreme Court, presenting the dispute as a disagreement on the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment. Missouri Solicitor General Joshua Divine painted the law as Missouri’s way of deterring state and local law enforcement from helping federal officials in enforcing laws they believed to be unconstitutional.
Further contention arose as to whether the United States had a right to sue at all, given its lack of true injury from Missouri’s decision to not enforce federal laws.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar implored the court to deny the state’s request, stating that the law is an egregious attempt to nullify federal law. Prelogar noted that while the state legislature is allowed to express Second Amendment-related concerns and prohibit the enforcement of federal laws by state and local officials, it cannot claim to nullify federal statutes, direct state officials and courts to treat these statutes as invalid or attempt to guard against their enforcement.
Ultimately, the court denied Missouri’s request on Friday afternoon, though an official reasoning was not provided. Also, Justice Thomas again indicated his support to Missouri’s request, without offering his reasons. Lastly, in a brief statement joined by Alito, Gorsuch explained that he was in agreement with the court’s decision to reject Missouri’s request because he understood the order of Judge Wimes to prohibit only the enforcement of the law by state officials, employees and those actively collaborating with them. He emphasized that federal courts cannot issue an order that would bar enforcement of the law itself or its implementation by private parties who are not part of the litigation.
More details can be found on the original article at SCOTUSblog.