Supreme Court won’t reinstate Missouri gun law as Thomas dissents

The Supreme Court declined to reinstate a Missouri law that prevents local police from working with the federal government to enforce certain gun laws.

The justices Friday sided with the Biden administration in denying the Republican-led state’s emergency application to put the law back into effect while a legal challenge proceeds in a lower court.

Justice Clarence Thomas publicly dissented. Two of his fellow conservative justices who voted to deny Missouri’s request said they believe private parties can still enforce the law.

The case could ultimately return to the high court on the merits.

Missouri passed the Second Amendment Preservation Act in June 2021, declaring that limitations on gun transfers and firearm registrations, among others, are unconstitutional. 

Police as well as other state and local government employees are barred from enforcing provisions the law deems invalid. Violations can carry a $50,000 civil fine.

The Biden administration last year sued over Missouri’s law, arguing it is unconstitutional, and a federal district judge agreed in March.

But the law remained in effect until late last month, when the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a single-sentence order denied Missouri’s request for a stay as their appeal proceeds.

The state then went to the Supreme Court to revive the law, insisting it is constitutional and that the Biden administration has no standing, or no legal right to sue.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a statement joined by fellow conservative Justice Samuel Alito, suggested private parties can still enforce the law.               

“With the understanding that the district court ‘prohibited’ only ‘implementation and enforcement’ of H. B. 85 by the State of ‘Missouri and its officers, agents, and employees’ and ‘any others in active concert with such individuals,’… I agree with the denial of the application for a stay under the present circumstances,” Gorsuch wrote.

He continued, “An injunction purporting to bind private parties not before the district court or the ‘challenged’ provisions ‘themselves,’ however, would be inconsistent with the ‘equitable powers of federal courts.’”

Missouri cited the 8th Circuit’s lack of explanation, contending that the state would suffer irreparable harm if the law remains off the books.

“So except for the 24-hour period between when the district court entered its order and its administrative stay and the two business days between the Eighth Circuit issuing its one-line order and Missouri filing this application, Missouri’s law has been allowed to stay in effect for more than two years. By issuing a stay, this Court would maintain the status quo,” the state wrote to the justices.

The Biden administration, which contends the law is unconstitutional for multiple reasons, urged the Supreme Court to stay out of the case and said it didn’t warrant the high court’s rare emergency intervention.

“The Missouri Legislature is free to express its opinions about the Second Amendment, and it is also free to prohibit state and local officials from assisting in the enforcement of federal law. But it is not free to purport to nullify federal statutes; to direct state officials and courts to treat those statutes as invalid and to protect against their enforcement; or to regulate and discriminate against federal officials enforcing those statutes,” the Justice Department wrote in court filings.

“This Court should not grant extraordinary emergency relief to allow Missouri to resume implementation of that nullificationist scheme,” the filing continued.