The wheels of the justice system grind slowly, as gun owners are well aware. There are a number of lawsuits that have been kicking around the federal judiciary for five, six, or even seven years, at least in part because some of those cases had earlier decisions vacated and were remanded back down to district court in light of the Bruen or Rahimi decisions from the Supreme Court. The Snope case that's been pending in conference at the Supreme Court, for instance, was originally filed in December, 2020, and got all the way to SCOTUS before it was granted cert, the lower court decision upholding Maryland's ban on "assault weapons" vacated, and the case remanded back to the Fourth Circuit for a do-over after Bruen was released in June, 2022.
After a three-judge panel on the Fourth Circuit heard a second round of oral arguments in December of that year, the panel waited for more than a year to release its opinion, only to be usurped by an en banc panel of the Fourth Circuit, which decided to take up the case before the three judge panel ever published its opinion. That was an almost unprecedented move
Delays of those nature are still incredibly frustrating, but they're at least somewhat understandable... unlike what we're seeing with a right-to-carry case that's been gathering dust at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for well over a year.
It's been 573 days since oral arguments in Koons/Siegel v. Platkin before the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals... for the preliminary injunction only. Follow all NJ #carrykiller news here: https://news2a.com/new-jersey/carry-killer/ @JoeLoPorto @2AFDN @gunpolicy @fourboxesdiner @NJFOSyndicate @2aforNJ @GunWashington @MorosKostas @JohnPetrolino @JayCostaUSA
— News2ATeam (@News2ATeam) May 20, 2025
Ironically, it was two years ago tomorrow that the state of New Jersey and Attorney General Matthew Platkin requested an expedited appeal of the district court’s opinion and order preliminarily enjoining enforcement of portions of New Jersey's Bruen response bill. The Third Circuit granted a partial stay in June, 2023, with oral arguments over the preliminary injunction taking place in October of that year.
While there've been several court filings since then, we're still waiting for the Third Circuit to issue its decision on the scope of the preliminary injunction or the emergency stay, which has kept a number of "gun-free zones" in place; including restaurants where alcohol is served, public gatherings, parks, zoos, and other recreation facilities.
As Second Amendment attorney Kostas Moros complained on X.com, the delays here are "outrageous and really should be illegal." Moros wondered why courts don't have any sort of deadline in issuing decisions, particularly in cases involving questions of constitutional law, and honestly, I think he's onto something there. Plaintiffs and defendants are subject to deadlines when it comes to filing motions and submitting evidence, so why shouldn't judges be subject to deadlines as well?
Maybe there's a reasonable explanation for the extraordinary delay in issuing a decision in Koons/Siegel, but as things stand the Third Circuit doesn't have to give us any justification whatsoever, and they can sit on the case for as long as they like without any repercussions.
As a result of the Third Circuit's inaction, those who possess a valid NJ carry permit are still unable to exercise their right to bear arms in a host of publicly accessible places, and if the panel declines to impose injunctive relief then it's likely going to take years before the laws in question could be overturned. The Supreme Court has shown a decided lack of interest in taking 2A cases before they're fully decided on the merits, and the lawsuit's progress in district court has essentially been put on hold until after the Third Circuit issues its decision regarding the request for a preliminary injunction. Once the appellate court does finally render its decision Koons/Siegel still has to be fully briefed, argued, and decided by District Court Judge Renee Bumb. Only then can the case be appealed on the merits to the Third Circuit, which may very well start another round of interminable delays.
The Sixth Amendment provides for a right to a speedy trial in criminal cases, but is silent on those of constitutional concerns. Given the current makeup of Congress, any substantial attempt to impose time limits on judicial decisions would like face an uphill battle, but I'd say it's worth it's worth the effort, and might even be something that could garner enough bipartisan support to become law.
