Filed Date: June 13, 2018
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenges a New Jersey law (Act A2761) banning the possession of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.
Per the complaint, since 1990, New Jersey had criminalized the possession of a “large capacity ammunition magazine,” which it defined to include “a box, drum, tube or other container which is capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition to be fed continuously and directly therefrom into a semi-automatic firearm.” In June, 2018, New Jersey began enforcing Act A2761, which amended that definition to lower the threshold at which a magazine qualifies as “large capacity.” New Jersey now defines as “large capacity” any magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The law gives New Jersey residents lawfully in possession of a banned firearm or magazine prior to the effective date 180 days after the effective date to transfer their firearms or magazines, to render them inoperable, to permanently modify them to accept 10 rounds or less, or to voluntarily surrender them. The law, however, permits retired law enforcement officers to possess and carry large capacity ammunition magazines, though it does not offer the same permission to other citizens, including retired members of the armed forces.
Complaint Filed by Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. and Two Individuals in the District Court
On June 13, 2018, the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. (ANJRPC), and two individual gun owners in New Jersey filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs sued the Attorney General of New Jersey and several other state officials, all in their official capacities, asserting that the ban was facially unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, that it effected a taking of property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and that it unconstitutionally favored retired police officers over former members of the Armed Forces and other law-abiding citizens. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief barring enforcement of Act A2761 and any implementing regulations, along with attorney’s fees. The case was assigned to District Judge Renee Marie Bumb.
Denial of the Plaintiffs’ Motions for Injunctive Relief in the District Court
On June 21, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to bar state officials from enforcing Act A2761 and any implementing regulations. The plaintiffs argued that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their Second Amendment, Equal Protection, and Takings Clause claims, that they would suffer irreparable harm if the court denied relief, and that the public interest and balance of equities weighed in their favor.
On September 18, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a notice of a motion for an injunction pending appeal, in the event the court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction. Ten days later, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that Act A2761 was not unconstitutional. 2018 WL 4688345. The court held that the state officials had reasonably tailored the law in response to growing concerns over mass shootings, that police officers were not similarly situated to other New Jersey citizens given their extensive training and unique circumstances, and finally, that the new law allowed gun owners to keep their magazines provided they brought them into compliance with the new law. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction pending appeal.
Plaintiffs’ Appeal of the District Court’s Order Denying Preliminary Injunctive Relief
Later that day, on September 28, 2018 the plaintiffs appealed the district court’s denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. (Docket No. 18-03170)
On October 1, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an injunction pending appeal with the Third Circuit. On October 12, 2018, Circuit Judges Joseph A. Greenaway Jr., Patty Shwartz, Stephanos Bibas denied the motion.
After oral argument in November 2018, on December 5, 2018, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s September 28 order denying the plaintiffs’ motion to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of Act A2761. Circuit Judges Greenaway Jr. and Shwartz held that the law reasonably fit the state’s interest in public safety and did not unconstitutionally burden the Second Amendment’s right to self-defense in the home. The court also rejected the Takings Clause and Equal Protection claims, finding that the law provided compliance alternatives and that exemptions for retired law enforcement officers were justified. Circuit Judge Bibas dissented, arguing that strict scrutiny should apply and that the government failed to demonstrate the law’s effectiveness. 910 F.3d 106.
On December 19, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a petition for a rehearing en banc. On January 9, 2019, the Third Circuit denied the petition.
Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment in the District Court
Back in the district court, on February 13 and 14, 2019, the state officials filed motions for summary judgment.
On March 18, 2019, the plaintiffs filed cross-motions for summary judgment and a stay of proceedings pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York.The plaintiffs argued that the forthcoming Supreme Court decision would provide guidance for this case.
On March 22, 2019, the state officials asked the court to postpone hearings for the pending motions filed by the parties. Three days later, the court adjourned the motions filed by the parties.
On July 29, 2019, the court granted the state officials’ motion for summary judgment while denying the plaintiffs’ cross motions for summary judgment and a stay. The court held that a stay would harm the state officials, since they would be left enforcing a law of doubtful constitutionality, while the plaintiffs would face no prejudice if the court were to deny a stay. The court also found that the legal issue before the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York was distinct from the issue in this case. Finally, the court concluded that because binding Third Circuit precedent held the New Jersey law constitutional, there was no longer a genuine issue of material fact. 2019 WL 3430101.
Plaintiffs’ Appeal of the District Court’s Order Granting the State Officials’ Motion for Summary Judgment
On September 17, 2019, the plaintiffs appealed the district court’s July 29, 2019 order granting the state officials’ motion for summary judgment while denying the plaintiffs’ cross-motions for summary judgment and a stay to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. (Docket No. 19-3142)
On October 22, 2019, the state officials filed a motion for summary action to affirm the district court’s July 29 order granting them summary judgment, along with a 30-day stay of the briefing schedule pending the court’s ruling on the summary action motion. They argued that since the Third Circuit had rejected the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment, Takings Clause, and Equal Protection Clause challenges on the merits and upheld the state law at issue, there was no substantial question raised in the plaintiffs’ appeal. Three days later, the Third Circuit granted the stay of the briefing schedule pending disposition of the motion for summary action. On November 18, Circuit Judges Kent A. Jordan, Cheryl Ann Krause, and Paul B. Matey denied the state officials’ motion for summary action.
On November 8, 2019, the plaintiffs requested the appellate court to stay proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, No. 18-280 (Jan. 22, 2019). The plaintiffs argued that this Supreme Court decision would likely clarify the scope and application of the Second Amendment, which could resolve the Third Circuit’s analysis of this case. On November 20, the Third Circuit continued to stay the briefing schedule pending disposition to the plaintiffs’ motion to stay proceedings. On April 22, 2020, the Third Circuit granted the plaintiffs’ motion to stay proceedings pending the Supreme Court Decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York.
On April 28, 2020, the Third Circuit lifted the April 22 stay after the Supreme Court issued its decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, No. 18-280 (Jan. 22, 2019).
On September 1, 2020, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s July 29, 2019 order granting the state officials’ motion for summary judgment and denying the plaintiffs’ cross-motions for summary judgment. 974 F.3d 237. Circuit Judges Jordan and Jane Richards Roth held that the law-of-the-case doctrine bound the court to its prior decision rejecting constitutional challenges to the state law at issue under the Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Circuit Judge Matey dissented, arguing that the law-of-the-case doctrine did not apply and that the large-capacity magazine ban violated the Second Amendment under either strict or intermediate scrutiny.
On September 15, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc. On November 25, 2020, the Third Circuit denied the petition.
Supreme Court Vacatur
On April 29, 2021, the ANJRPC and one of the individual gun owners in New Jersey filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
While the certiorari petition was pending, the Supreme Court issued its New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) decision. 142 S.Ct. 2111. The Court held that New York's proper-cause requirement for obtaining an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm violated the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevented law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Thereafter, on June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court vacated the prior rulings in this lawsuit and remanded the case back to the Third Circuit.
On August 25, 2022, the Third Circuit remanded the case to the district court to allow the State the opportunity to develop the record further, consistent with the standard established in Bruen. 2022 WL 22860232. Circuit Judge Matey dissented, arguing that a remand was unnecessary as issues regarding magazine capacity and Second Amendment rights have already been thoroughly examined and should have been resolved without further delay in the Third Circuit.
Cheeseman Proceedings in the District Court
On June 30, 2022, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. and its two members filed a complaint against the Attorney General of New Jersey and several other state officials, all in their official capacities, for violations of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments through enforcement of the New Jersey ban. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, along with attorney’s fees.
On July 14, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, strengthening their factual allegations.
Ellman Proceedings in the District Court
On July 1, 2022, the ANJRPC and two of its members filed a complaint against the Attorney General of New Jersey and several other state officials, all in their official capacities, for violations of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments through enforcement of the New Jersey ban. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, along with attorney’s fees.
ANJRPC District Court Case Reopening
On August 25, 2022, the district court reopened the case. On September 20, 2022, the court dismissed an individual plaintiff and two state official defendants from the case. On October 28, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint substituted a plaintiff and several state officials with new individuals and updated the legal theory to reflect the historical tradition test established in Bruen.
Consolidation of District Court Cases
On November 18, 2022, the state officials filed a motion to consolidate the three cases (ANJRPC: 1:18-cv-10507, Cheeseman: 1:22-cv-4360 and Ellman: 1:22-cv-04397).
On December 6, 2022, the court adjourned the state officials’ motion to consolidate. On January 25, 2023, the court held a hearing for the motion to consolidate. On February 6, 2023, the court granted the motion to consolidate for coordination of discovery. The court held that the cases had similar constitutionality challenges to the Act, were at the same procedural stages, and were all related to Bruen, among other considerations.
Consolidated Proceedings on Summary Judgment in the District Court
On October 6, 2023, the ANJRPC and Ellman plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs argued that the challenged bans were not consistent with the historical tradition of firearms regulation, the banned magazines were, in fact, arms, the banned magazines were suitable for self-defense, and the challenged bans were unconstitutional takings.
On November 3, 2023, the state officials in the consolidated actions filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. They argued that the Second Amendment did not protect large-capacity magazines or assault weapons and New Jersey’s laws were consistent with historical traditions.
On April 11, 2024, the court held a hearing for the parties’ motions for summary judgment. On July 30, 2024, the court granted in part and denied in part both the plaintiffs’ and state officials’ motions for summary judgment. The court held that the state’s ban on the Colt AR-15 for self-defense in the home violated the Second Amendment, as the firearm was in common use for lawful purposes and no historical analogue justified its categorical prohibition. However, the court upheld the large-capacity magazines amendment, which reduced magazine capacity from fifteen to ten rounds, finding it consistent with historical regulations of dangerous arms and tailored to address modern concerns of mass shootings. That same day, the court sua sponte stayed the effect of the order for thirty days.
Immediate Appeals of the July 30 District Court Order
On July 30, 2024, the Cheeseman plaintiffs appealed to the Third Circuit the district court's order, issued that same day, partially granting and partially denying their motion for summary judgment. (Docket No. 24-2415) On August 5, 2024, the consolidated state officials cross-appealed the July 30, 2024 district court order. (Docket No. 24-2450)
Motions for Extended Stay in District Court
On August 2, 2024, after Judge Sheridan retired, the case was reassigned in the district court to Judge Renee Marie Bumb.
On August 8, 2024, the parties jointly filed a motion to extend the court’s July 30 stay pending resolution of the plaintiffs’ forthcoming motion for reconsideration. Four days later, the court denied the extended stay pending reconsideration. Judge Bumb held that since the Cheeseman plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit minutes after the district court issued the July 30 order, and the state officials filed a cross-appeal soon after, these acts divested the district court of jurisdiction. The court also found that even if it did have jurisdiction, it would not entertain a motion for reconsideration when considering the litigation record that spanned six years, intervening Supreme Court precedent, and countless hearings.
On August 13, 2024, the consolidated state officials filed in the district court an emergency motion for extension of the July 30 stay issued by the court pending appeal, or in the alternative, a 15-day administrative extension of the July 30 stay.
On August 14, 2024, the ANJRPC and Ellman plaintiffs appealed the district court’s July 30 order granting in part and denying in part their motions for summary judgment to the Third Circuit. (Docket No. 24-2506)
On August 20, 2024, the parties jointly filed a motion in the district court to extend the court’s July 30 stay pending appeal. On the same day, the parties also filed a joint motion to withdraw the emergency motion to stay pending appeal. The next day, the court granted the joint motion for an extension of the stay.
On February 25, 2025, the district court granted another extension of the stay pending appeal.
On August 26, 2025, the district court administratively terminated the case pending appeal.
Consolidated Appeals Proceedings in the Third Circuit
On August 22, 2024, the Third Circuit consolidated the three pending appeals (24-2415, 24-2450, and 24-2506); it held oral argument in the consolidated appeal on July 1, 2025.
Before the panel could issue a decision, however, on August 21, 2025, the Third Circuit, issued an order sua sponte granting a rehearing en banc in the consolidated appeals.
On October 15, 2025, en banc oral arguments were held.
This case is ongoing, with a decision not yet issued as of June 2026.
Summary Authors
Alexis Gil (7/1/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69010016/parties/association-of-new-jersey-rifle-pistol-clubs-inc-v-grewal/
Bumb, Renee Marie (New Jersey)
ALAMPI, JENNIFER (New Jersey)
ALAMPI, CARMINE RICHARD (New Jersey)
CAI, ANGELA (New Jersey)
CHEN, DAVID (New Jersey)
ALAMPI, CARMINE RICHARD (New Jersey)
Esq., Carmine Richard (New Jersey)
Esq., Jennifer Alampi, (New Jersey)
FEINBLATT, STUART MARK (New Jersey)
FENNELLY, KATHLEEN N. (New Jersey)
GALELLA, LINDA A. (New Jersey)
IOANNOU, CHRISTOPHER JOHN (New Jersey)
JACOBS, MITCHELL B. (New Jersey)
KANT, NICHOLAS KLINGBEIL (New Jersey)
LIDAKA, MARY JANE (New Jersey)
LUCAS, BRYAN EDWARD (New Jersey)
MEDOWAY, MELISSA LEE (New Jersey)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69010016/association-of-new-jersey-rifle-pistol-clubs-inc-v-grewal/
Last updated June 30, 2026, 4:52 p.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 13, 2018
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The plaintiffs are firearm associations and individual gun owners.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
State
Attorney General of New Jersey
Chief of Police for the Chester Police Department
Chief of Police for the Lyndhurst Police Department
Superintendent of the New Jersey Division of State Police
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Second Amendment (Right to Bear Arms)
Other Dockets:
District of New Jersey 1:18-cv-10507
District of New Jersey 1:22-cv-04397
District of New Jersey 1:22-cv-04360
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 24-02415
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 24-02450
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 24-02506
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 18-03170
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 19-03142
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Area:
Case Summary of Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Grewal, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/48020/ (last updated 7/1/2026).