New Jersey, like many other Democrat-controlled states, has a relatively recent law that subjects “gun industry members” to civil liability for conduct the state deems a “public nuisance.”
The broad language of the law declares that gun makers, distributors, and sellers shall not "knowingly or recklessly create, maintain, or contribute to a public nuisance in this State through the sale, manufacturing, distribution, importing, or marketing of a gun-related product" and requires them to establish, implement, and enforce "reasonable controls" regarding the manufacture, sale, distribution, importing, and marketing of gun-related products.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation sued over the New Jersey law in question shortly after it took effect, arguing that it is unconstitutional under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the First Amendment, and Second Amendment, as well as being preempted by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
Though a district court granted NSSF's request for an injunction, the Third Circuit rejected the NSSF's complaint, saying it was too speculative given that the state Attorney General hadn't taken any sort of action against gun industry members. That changed just a few months later, though, and the NSSF filed an amended complaint once again seeking a preliminary injunction barring enforcement.
Though the district court judge decided NSSF now had standing to sue, they denied the injunctive relief sought by NSSF by citing a 1971 decision in a case called Younger v. Harris.
Today, the Third Circuit agreed that NSSF's lawsuit can proceed, but it also overturned the district court decision and declared that the firearms industry trade group's request for an injunction should be considered on the merits.
Three requirements must be met “before Younger abstention is appropriate: (1) there must be an ongoing state judicial proceeding to which the federal plaintiff is a party and with which the federal proceeding will interfere, (2) the state proceedings must implicate important state interests, and (3) the state proceedings must afford an adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional claims.”
NSSF is not a party to any of the state-level enforcement actions taken by the New Jersey Attorney General's office, but New Jersey argued that Younger still applies because "NSSF’s requested declaration that A1765 is unconstitutional would practically provide Glock with an absolute defense in its state court suit."
But it’s always true that a constitutional challenge to a state statute in federal court, if accepted, would “interfere” in that way with ongoing state enforcement actions under the state statute. That collateral effect is not the kind of direct interference Younger contemplates. “Abstention is not in order simply because a pending state-court proceeding involves the same subject matter.”
New Jersey tried to argue that the NSSF's case falls apart because an exception to Younger's first requirement says that a federal plaintiff who is not a party to state-level action can still be subject to Younger if it's “closely related” to the state defendant in terms of “ownership, control, and management.” As the Third Circuit concluded, though, NSSF is not the owner, manager, or controlling shareholder of Glock.
The appellate court called New Jersey's argument an "overbroad "rule that "would effectively eliminate all associational lawsuits when one member is facing an ongoing enforcement action," and called the state out for trying to create a Catch-22 situation for firearm industry members.
If the association sued before the enforcement action against one of its members, it would be dismissed for lack of standing, like in NSSF I. If it sued after the enforcement action, it would be dismissed under Younger. Because NSSF, and its members, are “entitled to [their] own day in court,” we reject New Jersey’s proposed rule.
Now, this doesn't mean that NSSF will prevail on its request for a preliminary injunction when the case goes back down to district court, but the group is in a strong position given that the district court originally granted one during NSSF I. It's also possible that New Jersey could request an en banc review of today's decision, but I doubt that a majority of the Third Circuit's judges would be in favor of a review.
Today's decision isn't the last word in NSSF v. Davenport, but it's still a hugely important development, and one that will hopefully help to put an end to New Jersey's abusive public nuisance law and similar statutes in other states.
