Schoenthal v. Raoul - State Wins 7th Circuit Appeal Judgement Against Carry Ban on Public Transportation

[Upholder]

Today, the defendants filed their reply briefs:

 

 

2025.05.02_070_Raoul_and_Berlin_Reply_Brief.pdf 2025.05.02_069_Burke_Reply_Brief.pdf

[Tango7]

On 5/2/2025 at 4:47 PM, Upholder said:

Today, the defendants filed their reply briefs:

 

 

 

 

Oh look - the same "crowded places" and "sensitive spaces" argument. <yawn>.

 

If they were actually concerned, and considered those places the way they describe, they'd have armed officers on each train, as well as magnetometers at entry turnstiles... but they don't. 🤔

[Euler]

On May 23, plaintiffs filed notice of mootness for plaintiff Joseph Vesel (1 of the 4 named plaintiffs). Vesel has recently become an officer for the University of Chicago police. As such, he is exempt from the carry prohibition, so he no longer has standing.

Edited May 23, 2025 at 11:11 PM by Euler

[Tango7]

On 5/23/2025 at 6:10 PM, Euler said:

On May 23, plaintiffs filed notice of mootness for plaintiff Joseph Vesel (1 of the 4 named plaintiffs). Vesel has recently become an officer for the University of Chicago police. As such, he is exempt from the carry prohibition, so he no longer has standing.
 

Of course they did. If it was up to them, they'd continue until we were all dead. and as usual, we taxpayers wind up paying to break the chains that we paid to have forged and places around our necks, as well as paying to protect them.

[davel501]

On 5/27/2025 at 8:37 AM, Tango7 said:

Of course they did. If it was up to them, they'd continue until we were all dead. and as usual, we taxpayers wind up paying to break the chains that we paid to have forged and places around our necks, as well as paying to protect them.

 

The government is the defendant in this case. 

[Molly B.]

Oral arguments are scheduled for today. The case is listed first of several cases, but I do not know if that is the order they will be heard. 

 

Arguments will live streamed

https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCWvXsHlWdsIJHy3R_znCUsA/live

 

We have worked toward this and waited for this for 12 years. It is good to reach this step. 

[Molly B.]

Court is called to order

first up is the state

[Molly B.]

Our side is up and the judges seemed focused on challenging the standing of the plaintiffs.

[Molly B.]

I believe the audio recording will be available at this link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB4YhjTDIAE

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 5/28/2025 at 9:56 AM, Molly B. said:

Our side is up and the judges seemed focused on challenging the standing of the plaintiffs.

I'm not a judge but the seems to me the "damage" is that we are denied our right to self protection in a place the government does not otherwise provide like at a courthouse.   Bringing up schools implies they think this decision would effect that as well...  

 

Edited May 28, 2025 at 03:14 PM by SiliconSorcerer

[EdDinIL]

On 5/28/2025 at 10:12 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

I'm not a judge but the seems to me the "damage" is that we are denied our right to self protection in a place the government does not otherwise provide like at a courthouse. 

Can't you protect yourself without a firearm?  Besides, the law says things like murder and assaults are illegal.  You should already be safe because of laws like those.

[Tango7]

On 5/27/2025 at 9:09 AM, davel501 said:

 

The government is the defendant in this case. 

I'm aware of the status of the government as defendant.

 

My comment about taxpayers being forced to pay to forge and maintain their own chains whether they want to or not stands, as does my criticism of their tactic of continuing cases until they can be dismissed - see the multiple under 21 FOID applicants who filed for judicial relief and whose cases were continued until they reached 21, at which point the state filed for dismissal citing lack of standing.

[WilsonCQB1911]

On 5/23/2025 at 6:10 PM, Euler said:

On May 23, plaintiffs filed notice of mootness for plaintiff Joseph Vesel (1 of the 4 named plaintiffs). Vesel has recently become an officer for the University of Chicago police. As such, he is exempt from the carry prohibition, so he no longer has standing.
 

 

Sorry guys

[Euler]

On July 1 in appellate court, the court ordered further briefings based on Cook County's assertion that this case does not address the plaintiffs' claimed injuries. There are prohibitions against carry on public transit other than state law, but this case addresses only state law. The court also wants the briefs to address the applicability of the recent US Supreme Court decision in Gutierrez v Saenz (2025).

In the 5th Circuit opinion of Gutierrez v Saenz (which involved denying access to DNA testing), the appellate court held that the plaintiff did not have standing to challenge TX's DNA testing law, because the case only addressed how state law violated the plaintiff's rights. It did not address how prosecutors could still use discretion to deny defendants access to DNA testing. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, ruling that due process required access to DNA testing, regardless of whether it was state law or prosecutorial discretion that denied a defendant access to DNA testing.

In other words, Cook County is arguing that, because plaintiffs are not challenging all the laws that prohibit carry on public transit, declaring the state prohibition unconstitutional will not grant them relief (i.e., the ability to carry). Therefore the plaintiffs have not stated a claim that can be granted relief. Therefore the case should be reversed. The 7th Circuit is asking whether, if the state law would be found unconstitutional, other governmental units (e.g., Cook County or the public transit agencies themselves) would lack the authority to deny carry on public transit.

Edited July 7, 2025 at 11:36 PM by Euler

[EdDinIL]

On 7/7/2025 at 5:14 PM, Euler said:

plaintiffs are not challenging all the laws that prohibit carry on public transit

Would one single court case have been able to hear a challenge to "all the laws" regardless of what governmental level they are at? 

[Upholder]

On 7/8/2025 at 9:17 AM, EdDinIL said:

Would one single court case have been able to hear a challenge to "all the laws" regardless of what governmental level they are at? 

 

That's some catch, that Catch-22.

[Euler]

On July 11 in appellate court, all parties filed their supplemental briefs as requested by the court on July 1.

Only the brief by Raoul and Berlin (DuPage County) is accessible by the public. The brief by plaintiffs and the brief by O'Neill Burke (Cook County) are currently inaccessible. They'll probably become accessible next week.

Raoul and Berlin said:

... In state defendants' view, plaintiff Douglas Winston likely has standing. Winston seeks to carry firearms on Chicago Transit Authority ("CTA") trains and buses; the relevant CTA ordinance is likely best read to permit individuals who are entitled to carry firearms under state law on public transit to do so on CTA property; and Winston would be such a person were section 66/65(a)(8) of the Concealed Carry Act held unconstitutional. Because at least Winston likely has standing, the Court has no need to address whether any other plaintiff has standing.
...
For that reason, in state defendants' view, plaintiff Douglas Winston likely has standing, but, for the reasons set out in state defendants' briefs, the district court erred in concluding that section 66/65(a)(8) violates the Second Amendment.

Raoul and Berlin didn't address Gutierrez v Saenz.

Edited July 12, 2025 at 07:22 AM by Euler

[Euler]

On July 14, the supplemental briefs filed by plaintiffs and Cook County were made available publicly in back-dated docket entries.

Plaintiffs said:

Both of the authorities identified in the Court's supplemental-briefing order strongly confirm that Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the Illinois Public Transit Ban. First, although Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) Ordinance No. 016-110 § 1(28) generally bans weapons from buses and trains, it explicitly exempts from this blanket ban individuals authorized under 720 ILCS 5/24-2 to carry weapons on transit. And individuals with a valid concealed-carry license are authorized under section 5/24-2 to do exactly that. ... Even if the CTA Ordinance did ban possession of handguns by concealed-carry license holders, it would still be unenforceable because any such application is preempted by state law. ... Without the Illinois Public Transit Ban, there would be no valid law, ordinance, or regulation prohibiting Plaintiffs from carrying their concealed firearms on CTA buses and trains. Their injury is thus redressable by declaring the enforcement of that law unconstitutional.
...
The Supreme Court's recent decision in Gutierrez v. Saenz ... confirms these conclusions. That case reiterated that an injury is redressable if the court can remove one of the "unconstitutional barrier[s]" that exists between a plaintiff and his desired relief. ... The Public Transit Ban presents one such barrier here and Plaintiffs thus have standing as confirmed by Gutierrez's clear holding.
...

O'Neill Burke said:

...
The dispositive jurisdictional inquiry here, then, is whether unchallenged third-party regulations prohibiting Schoenthal from possessing firearms on CTA and Metra trains and property prevent this court from redressing Schoenthal's injuries, thus depriving him of Article III standing. This court's order of July 1, 2025, requested supplemental briefing to address two questions related to this inquiry. First, how CTA Ordinance 016-110 (hereafter, the "Ordinance") prohibiting firearms on public transit "would operate in the absence of 430 ILCS 66/65(8), as well as any other CTA rule that may prohibit plaintiffs' desired conduct." Second, "whether the Supreme Court's recent decision in Gutierrez v. Saenz ... affects the redressability analysis" in this case. Proper resolution of these questions does not change the bottom line here. Schoenthal's injury -- his inability to bring firearms on public transit -- is not redressable by a declaration as to the Public Transit Statute's constitutionality, depriving him of Article III standing. Gutierrez only confirms that fact.
...

Edited July 15, 2025 at 01:29 AM by Euler

[Maxon Shooters]

Decision. Loss. Ban is upheld. Amy St. Eve concurs.  She is likely on our AWB panel this month.

-dan e

 

schoenthal.pdf

[Matt B]

Extremely disappointed to see St Eve not dissent on this. Bodes poorly for the AWB case. Miss on a judicial pick from Trump.

[Molly B.]

Dog gone it.

[Tvandermyde]

this is an especially bad and dangerous ruling, gonna have to knock the dust off the video editing stuff. . . 

[yurimodin]

Remember kids EVERYTHING has to go all the way to SCOTUS because oath breaking federal district judges are willfully illiterate. 

[Euler]

CA7 opinion said:

...
The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to self-defense. It does not bar the people's representatives from enacting laws --- consistent with the nation's historical tradition of regulation -- that ensure public transportation systems remain free from accessible firearms. We are asked whether the state may temporarily disarm its citizens as they travel in crowded and confined metal tubes unlike anything the Founders envisioned. We draw from the lessons of our nation's historical regulatory traditions and find no Second Amendment violation in such a regulation. ...
...

[Upholder]

 

[Upholder]

 

[ealcala31]

We lost PICA in the 7th Circuit. Let's get ready for months of PICA Conferences and hope we're still not 1.5yrs out. Whoever thought Judge Amy St.Eve was an impartial jurist was dead wrong. She's an anti-gun federal judge, let's make no bones about it.

[Black Flag]

On 9/3/2025 at 9:39 AM, ealcala31 said:

We lost PICA in the 7th Circuit. 

 

When was that?

 

I don't think PICA has yet gone to trial in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, 

it has gone to trial in the Southern District of Illinois, Judge McGlynn ruled in our favor.
The state appealed to the 7th, and orals are scheduled for Sept 22.

[davel501]

On 9/3/2025 at 1:33 PM, Black Flag said:

 

When was that?

 

I don't think PICA has yet gone to trial in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, 

it has gone to trial in the Southern District of Illinois, Judge McGlynn ruled in our favor.
The state appealed to the 7th, and orals are scheduled for Sept 22.

 

McGlynn has ruled 2x against PICA. The 7th overturned his first ruling because they still believe Friedman is good law. 

[Euler]

McGlynn issued a preliminary injunction, which was vacated, in Barnett. Then he issued a ruling after the trial. Barnett hasn't been lost for a second time yet. Arguments are set for September 22 for the state's appeal.

FWIW, appeals courts don't hear trials. They just hear arguments. Trials determine facts. Appeals determine law.