7th Circuit Archives -

Barnett V. Raoul – Oral Arguments And Analysis

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the case of Barnett v. Raoul on Tuesday. The case involves the ban by the State of Illinois on certain semi-automatic firearms as well as standard capacity magazines. The US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois had issued a permanent injunction against the enforcement of this ban and the state appealed against this judgment. Barnett is the lead case and is the amalgam of four different challenges to the state’s Protect Illinois Communities Act.

What makes this case even more interesting than a usual AWB and mag ban case is that the US Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs and was given time in the oral arguments. Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, argued on behalf of the DOJ.

The full oral arguments can be found here. The three judge panel consisted of Judges Frank Easterbrook, Michael Brennan, and Amy St. Eve.

Involved in the case(s) since the beginning has been my good friend Todd Vandermyde. He and I had a long conversation about the case and the oral arguments earlier this week as he was in the courtroom. He has since put up an analysis of the case on his Freedom’s Steel YouTube channel. Most interesting was Todd’s analysis of what happens next depending on the opinion in the case. It could a win, it could be a win and the state appeals for an en banc hearing, it could be a split decision, or it could be a loss. All have ramifications for what direction things take from there.

Todd also did an interview with William Kirk of Washington Gun Law regarding the case. That interview is on YouTube and can be found here.

Disappointing

The US Supreme Court declined to issue an injunction against the new Illinois AWB and magazine ban while the cases make their way through the courts.

NAT. ASSN. FOR GUN RIGHTS, ET AL. V. NAPERVILLE, IL., ET AL.
The application for a writ of injunction pending appeal
presented to Justice Barrett and by her referred to the Court is
denied.

While Judge Stephen McGlynn of the Southern District of Illinois had issued a preliminary injunction, the state of Illinois immediately appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals asking for a stay of his injunction. Normally, the judge who had issued the injunction is given the opportunity to study whether a stay is warranted when the losing party appeals. This was not done in this case as noted by attorneys for the plaintiffs in their responses opposing the motion to stay. Unfortunately, Judge Frank Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit did grant their stay meaning the law remains in effect. His order was then confirmed by a panel of three judges (including himself) from the 7th Circuit.

In the NAGR case filed in the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Virginia Kendall had denied their request for a preliminary motion and their request for a motion to stay while they appealed. Attorneys for NAGR had appealed and the plaintiffs in the other cases from the Southern District had filed amicus briefs in support of their appeal.

I am thinking that the Supreme Court did not want to intervene until such time as decisions were final in the lower courts and the cases had been fully briefed and argued. In the meantime, the plaintiffs in the cases from the Southern District where an injunction had been issued could request an en banc hearing of the stay. According to the Washington Post, hearings are scheduled for next month on these cases.