Lead Plaintiff Asks To Withdraw From Supreme Court Challenge To Maryland's 'Assault Weapon' Ban
A major Supreme Court case over whether states can ban AR-15-style semiautomatic rifles has been thrown into doubt after the lead plaintiff unexpectedly asked to withdraw.
The case, Snope v. Brown, challenges Maryland's ban on certain semiautomatic firearms that the state calls assault weapons. The justices agreed in June to hear it, setting up a potentially major ruling on the constitutional limits of state gun restrictions.
Last week, however, attorneys told the court that lead plaintiff Dominic Bianchi wanted out of the litigation.
Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown quickly argued that the entire case should now be dismissed. In a filing Thursday, Maryland said Bianchi's departure raises questions about whether the remaining plaintiffs have the legal standing to keep challenging the law.
READ MORE: 8-1 SUPREME COURT WIN – TRUMP'S BORDER WALL IS BACK
A Mysterious Voicemail
The circumstances of Bianchi's decision have added another layer of intrigue, CNN noted.
His attorneys said in a court filing that they received a voicemail on Oct. 28 from someone identifying himself as Bianchi and asking to be removed from the lawsuit. They confirmed the phone number belonged to their client but told the court they had been unable to speak with him directly despite repeated attempts.
The lawyers said they did not understand why Bianchi suddenly wanted out of litigation that has gone on for years, and argued that his withdrawal should not stop the Supreme Court from deciding the case.
The case also includes other individual plaintiffs and organizations, including the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation. Those groups say the constitutional dispute is still very much alive.
Maryland disagrees, arguing the unusual circumstances call for extra scrutiny before the justices hear arguments in one of the term's most important Second Amendment cases.
The Fight Over AR-15s
The case began after Maryland passed its Firearm Safety Act following the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. The law bans the possession, sale, transfer and purchase of dozens of specified semiautomatic firearms, including versions of the AR-15.
Challengers argue the ban violates the Second Amendment because AR-15-style rifles are commonly owned by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes. Maryland argues the weapons are unusually dangerous and similar enough to military firearms that states may restrict them.
The fight has grown more significant since the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which held that modern gun regulations must be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Gun-rights advocates say Maryland cannot point to a comparable historical tradition.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals nevertheless upheld the law, concluding that AR-15-style rifles fall outside Second Amendment protection because they are similar to military weapons such as the M16.
When the Supreme Court earlier declined to take up the dispute, Justice Brett Kavanaugh signaled it would be back. "In my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next Term or two," he wrote.
Several states have similar bans, so a broad ruling could reach well beyond Maryland. The immediate question is whether the justices will reach the constitutional issue at all, or whether Bianchi's unexplained exit gives Maryland the procedural opening it wants.