Seventh Circuit skeptical of using civil rights law to crack down on illegal gun purchases

The plaintiff seeks injuries under federal disability law, claiming the failure of state police to enforce certain gun regulations has specifically harmed Black children in Chicago.CHICAGO (CN)—A panel of Seventh Circuit judges on Tuesday appeared dubious of using the Americans with Disabilities Act to prevent illegal gun purchases in Chicago.Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in 2018 and sought relief under federal disability law, arguing that the Illinois State Police could take easy actions to curb gun violence, which disproportionately affects Black children in Chicago. After a lower court judge ruled in favor of the government, plaintiff Shanice Mathews appealed to the Seventh Circuit.At the case’s core are “straw purchases" — federally illegal gun purchases made on behalf of an individual who is not allowed to purchase or own a firearm.Appearing for the plaintiffs, Chicago attorney Thomas Geoghegan argued state law enforcement should take a simple action that would greatly reduce gun violence affecting children. Geoghegan explained that if the Illinois State Police enforced and documented a checklist of questions used by dealers at the time of a gun sale, it would help identify and stop straw purchases and curb gun violence.U.S. Circuit Judge Rebecca Taibleson, who was appointed to the court by President Trump, questioned Geoghegan on the authority of the court to issue the plaintiff’s requested relief.“Can you point us to a case that approves of federal court ordering a state agency to promulgate a specific regulation like this?” Taibleson asked.Geoghegan responded by saying he was not aware of any case that supports or forbids such relief.“All that we are asking is that the ISP use its authority, under its law, to provide a reasonable accommodation to these children,” Geoghegan said.U.S. Circuit Judge Amy St. Eve also questioned Geoghegan on the issue of standing to enforce the relief against firearm dealers.“For the injury piece of standing, you have to have causation,” the Trump appointee said. “If they are already exposed to criminal penalties, what in your allegations of the complaint suggest that this potential civil liability is going to make a bit of difference?"Geoghegan argued the proposed regulation would change dealer behavior by documenting that gun buyers were being asked the checklist of questions.“It’s ending the concealment,” said Geoghegan.St. Eve has previously been sympathetic to firearm restrictions and upheld both an Illinois assault rifle ban and a law banning carrying firearms on public transit.Assistant Attorney General Samantha Sherman, arguing on behalf of the state defendants, said the state has passed several sweeping gun violence reforms in the eight years since the lawsuit was filed.“Plaintiff has not alleged that any of these efforts have harmed her child on the basis of his race or disability,” said Sherman. “Instead her claim is that the state police is discriminating against her child by failing to adopt and enforce a specific gun safety regulation that she prefers.”The sole issue the panel had for Sherman was on the plaintiff’s standing in the case.“What they are really seeking is just more enforcement, more vigorous enforcement from the state police on this issue," Sherman said. “That is a theory of injury that is not typically addressable in federal courts because it is centrally focused on agencies’ discretionary enforcement priorities.”Sherman also argued the current laws already disincentivize straw sales and the plaintiff has failed to show her proposed rule would have a measurable impact on the gun violence to which her child is exposed.Geoghegan responded to that argument by saying that the plaintiff has provided evidence showing that “requiring reasonable business practices to prevent straw sales will significantly reduce the level of violence.”Rounding out the panel was U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Brennan, who was appointed to the court by President Trump.The panel did not issue a timetable for when a ruling would be issued.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads