The case challenged Maryland's Firearm Safety Act of 2013, enacted after mass shootings, which prohibits possession, sale, and transfer of certain assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. Plaintiffs, including gun owners, dealers, and advocacy groups, argued the law violated the Second Amendment and other constitutional provisions, seeking declaratory judgment and summary judgment. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland upheld the Act as constitutional, granting summary judgment to state defendants and denying the plaintiffs' cross-motion. The core reasoning was that the law substantially advances public safety by limiting access to firearms with greater capacity to injure, while imposing no significant burden on the core Second Amendment right of law-abiding citizens to keep arms for self-defense in the home. The court also rejected related claims of vagueness in the statute's definitions and enforcement.
The case involved a challenge by gun owners, dealers, and advocacy groups to Maryland's Firearm Safety Act of 2013, which prohibits the possession, sale, and transfer of certain assault weapons and large-capacity magazines following incidents like the Sandy Hook shooting. The plaintiffs argued that the law violated the Second Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted summary judgment to the state defendants, upholding the Act as constitutional. The court reasoned that the law substantially advances the state's interest in public safety by limiting access to weapons with greater capacity to cause harm, without unduly burdening the core Second Amendment right of law-abiding citizens to defend their homes.
The case involved the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild challenging the seizure of 23 ancient Cypriot and Chinese coins by U.S. Customs and Border Protection after their importation, in an effort to contest the legality of import restrictions on certain archaeological coins from Cyprus and China under the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA). The guild alleged that the restrictions and seizures violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, constitutional protections under the First and Fifth Amendments, and were ultra vires actions by the State Department and Customs. The district court granted the government's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. It reasoned that the CPIA authorizes import restrictions on objects of archaeological interest first discovered within and subject to export control by the requesting state party, that the agencies' actions in designating restricted coins and enforcing the rules were consistent with statutory authority and not subject to the claimed procedural or constitutional defects, and that no basis existed for declaratory, injunctive, or mandamus relief.
immigrationbusiness & regulatorycivil rightsfederal power
This case involves a qui tam action under the False Claims Act filed by relator Barry Rostholder against Omnicare, Inc., where the government declined to intervene. The defendants moved to unseal the entire court docket, including the government's previously sealed motions for extensions of time to decide on intervention, to which the relator consented but the government opposed. The court granted the motion to unseal, reasoning that the False Claims Act does not explicitly address unsealing such motions but a presumption favors public access to court records, and after in camera review, the documents contained only routine investigative procedures without revealing confidential techniques or jeopardizing ongoing or future cases. The court balanced the defendants' interest in the documents for potential defenses against the government's confidentiality concerns and found no significant countervailing interest to maintain the seal.
The Equal Rights Center (ERC), a nonprofit focused on housing equality for people with disabilities, sued Equity Residential alleging that its multifamily properties were designed and built in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), making them inaccessible. Equity moved for partial summary judgment on the ground that the ERC lacked Article III standing. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that the ERC had standing to pursue its FHA claims based on its diversion of resources for testing and investigation but lacked standing under Title III because that statute's private right of action is limited to persons who are themselves subjected to discrimination. The decision turned on the distinct statutory language of each law and the facts developed in discovery about the ERC's activities.
In United States v. Fabian, Alan Fabian, who had pled guilty to mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and filing a false tax return under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1), filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate his conviction and sentence based on claims including ineffective assistance of counsel, breach of the plea agreement, prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, improper restitution and forfeiture orders, and actual innocence. The district court denied the motion without a hearing. The court reasoned that Fabian's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, that his ineffective assistance claims lacked merit because counsel's performance was not deficient and did not prejudice him, and that his other post-plea claims were either waived by the plea, procedurally defaulted, or failed on the merits given the terms of the plea agreement and applicable statutes.
