On September 22, District Judge Corey L. Maze denied a request by 15 anti-gun states to intervene in a significant Second Amendment case, saying “their interest has been adequately protected by Defendants.” In this case, the Defendants are no less than the Department of Justice.
The states attempting to intervene as parties to the action in the case of Butler v. Bondi, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Eastern Division, included:
- New Jersey
- Colorado
- Hawaii
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- North Carolina
- Nevada
- Rhode Island
- Arizona
- Vermont
- Washington
- Connecticut
- Oregon
- Delaware
- Maryland
The coalition of states was specifically concerned about enforcing a 2024 Biden-era ATF final rule attempting to clarify what it means to be “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms. You can read more about the legal challenges to that rule here. In essence, under the rule, even the sale of one firearm could place a person into a category of a “firearms dealer,” with stiff criminal penalties for conducting what used to be a constitutionally protected activity.
The order notes that, “According to the states, intervention was necessary because President Trump would likely seek elimination of the final rule after his inauguration on January 20, 2025, and the states have an interest in it remaining in effect.”
Judge Maze declined their motion to intervene, noting that not only was their request not timely, but “…the states do not have a legally protectable interest in this action.”
Most significant about Judge Maze’s order are statements that seem to affirm that the Bondi Justice Department is vigorously upholding that rule, despite both legal injunctions against it and the 2025 executive order from President Trump directing the Justice Department to “…assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens…”
Judge Maze writes, “The Trump administration then filed a reply brief that defended the Final Rule on both jurisdictional and merits grounds.”
The Bondi Justice Department has indicated it is reviewing the rule, suggesting the option that the ATF itself could rescind the rule. However, Judge Maze’s assessment that they are still enforcing the rule is troubling to the Second Amendment community, despite the positive outcome that he denied the involvement of these anti-gun states in the case.
This case was brought with support from the National Rifle Association.
