WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday declined to block a judge's ruling that a novel Missouri statute that limits state and local cooperation with the federal government in enforcing gun laws is unconstitutional.
The justices in a brief order rejected an emergency request filed by the state.
A federal judge had ruled that federal guns laws trump the state law. Under the Constitution’s supremacy clause, federal law generally takes precedence over state law.
The Missouri law, enacted in 2021, codifies state Republican lawmakers’ broad interpretation of the right to bear arms under the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment.
The measure says that no one in the state has the authority to “enforce or attempt to enforce any federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.”
It also declares that fees, taxes or levies on firearms that would be “expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens” violate the 2nd Amendment. It also declares that restrictions on registration or tracking should also be barred.
Police officers and other state or local officials can be sued by gun owners if they assist in enforcing the covered federal restrictions.
Justice Clarence Thomas noted Friday that he would have granted the state's request.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a short opinion joined by Justice Samuel Alito, said he agreed with the Supreme Court's decision, although he indicated that under his interpretation of the state law, private parties could potentially still sue state officials because they are not bound by the federal judge's ruling.
The Biden administration sued when the state law was enacted and U.S. District Judge Brian Wimes ruled in March that it was unconstitutional. The law was in effect for six months, but the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Sept. 29 lifted a hold on Wimes' decision, prompting the state to turn to the Supreme Court.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a Republican, told the Supreme Court in a filing that it is well established that under the federal system states can choose not to allocate resources to assist the federal government.
He also argued that the federal government cannot show it has suffered because of the state’s refusal to cooperate.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, said in her response that the law is “patently unconstitutional” in part because the supremacy clause “precludes a state from nullifying or interposing obstacles to federal law.”
The law has already “severely disrupted the federal government’s enforcement of federal law in Missouri, including its ability to apprehend dangerous criminals,” she added.
For example, some Missouri law enforcement officers involved in fugitive apprehension operations will “disengage at the scene” when they see that a firearm is involved, Prelogar said.
The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, is generally supportive of gun rights. In 2022, the court dramatically expanded gun rights when it ruled for the first time that the individual right to bear arms extends outside the home.
In November, the court will hear a new gun case in which the justices will weigh the scope of that decision in a case concerning whether people accused of domestic violence have a right to own firearms.
