Barnett v. Raoul (3:23-cv-00209) (S.D. Ill. 2023) - NSSF Gun/Mag Ban

[Vodoun da Vinci]

On 4/22/2026 at 8:56 AM, EdDinIL said:

What happens if (when?) the 7th still doesn't do anything like a petulant child ignoring a parent?  

Absolutely nothing is my guess.....there doesn't seem to be any consequences for people who draft/uphold unconstitutional legislation where firearms are concerned. 

 

VooDoo

Edited April 22, 2026 at 03:38 PM by Vodoun da Vinci

[yurimodin]

On 4/22/2026 at 8:56 AM, EdDinIL said:

What happens if (when?) the 7th still doesn't do anything like a petulant child ignoring a parent?  

Jack diddly.....this is America's 2 tiers on full display.

Edited April 22, 2026 at 04:22 PM by yurimodin

[Euler]

On April 22, 2026 at 07:50 AM CDT, SiliconSorcerer said:→

On 4/21/2026 at 1:49 PM, davel501 said:

When he denied the interlocutory appeal he instructed the 7th to resolve this quickly and the lawyers to return if they don't.

Denied was when?
(Sorry I know it's buried somewhere in the string of messages)

The stay on the preliminary injunction was petitioned in February 2024. The petition was denied in July. (docket)

Edited April 22, 2026 at 09:15 PM by Euler

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 3/30/2026 at 8:26 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

IIRC Justice Thomas said he wanted this case expedited.  Our side should poke the bear.  

So you file a lawsuit against the 7th and supena Justice Thomas as a  witness...

😀 

[Howard Roark]

On 4/22/2026 at 4:30 PM, SiliconSorcerer said:

So you file a lawsuit against the 7th and supena Justice Thomas as a  witness...

😀

 

Creative! 👍 

 

Judge Easterbrook is a train wreck of self love.  He'll give himself an A+ on his not very clever but wordy opinion, if he ever publishes it. My guess is he will keep his master-work opinion in his desk until he sees a personal advantage to himself and his anti 2A cohort of publishing it. Its all about winning, his own winning.

[TomKoz]

On 5/6/2026 at 9:37 PM, Howard Roark said:

 

Creative! 👍 

 

Judge Easterbrook is a train wreck of self love.  He'll give himself an A+ on his not very clever but wordy opinion, if he ever publishes it. My guess is he will keep his master-work opinion in his desk until he sees a personal advantage to himself and his anti 2A cohort of publishing it. Its all about winning, his own winning.

what if a judge delays a ruling on purpose

 

14 sites

 

If a judge intentionally delays a ruling, they typically remain protected by absolute judicial immunity from civil lawsuits for damages, even if the delay is deemed malicious or corrupt. Because managing a docket is considered a core "judicial act," it is nearly impossible to sue a judge personally for slow-walking a case. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

However, there are specific legal and administrative remedies for intentional delays: [1]

 

1. Mandatory Court Orders (Writ of Mandamus)

If a judge refuses to rule on a motion for an unreasonable length of time, a party can petition a higher court for a Writ of Mandamus. This is an extraordinary order that forces the lower court judge to perform their ministerial duty and issue a decision. [1]

 

2. Disciplinary Action

While you cannot sue a judge for money, you can file a formal complaint with the appropriate judicial council or state bar. [1]

• Judicial Conduct and Disability Act: Federal judges can be investigated for conduct "prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration" of court business.
• Sanctions: Discipline can include private or public censure, reprimand, or, in extreme cases, a recommendation for impeachment. [1, 2, 3, 4]

 

3. Motion for Removal or Recusal

A litigant may file a motion to have the judge removed from the case. If the delay suggests bias or prejudice, the judge may be forced to recuse themselves, allowing a new judge to be assigned to move the case forward. [1]

 

4. Constitutional Challenges (Criminal Cases)

In criminal proceedings, intentional government-caused delays can trigger a Sixth Amendment "Speedy Trial" violation. [1, 2]

• If a court finds that the delay was a deliberate attempt to hamper the defense, it may result in the dismissal of charges. []

 

5. Injunctive Relief and Attorney's Fees

While absolute immunity protects judges from money damages, the Supreme Court ruled in Pulliam v. Allenthat they can be subject to injunctive relief (a court order to stop a specific action) and may be held liable for the attorney’s fees incurred by the party seeking that relief. [1, 2]

 

---

⚖️ The "Absolute" Standard: To lose immunity entirely, a judge must act in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction" (e.g., a probate judge trying to preside over a criminal murder trial). Simply being slow or biased does not meet this high bar. [1, 3, 4]

To provide more specific guidance on how to address a delay:

• Is this a criminal or civil case?
• Has the judge already held a hearing and is just waiting to sign an order, or has a trial date not even been set?

 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional. Learn more

[SiliconSorcerer]

Unfortunately I'm waiting for the 2 year mark, one would expected expodited would be within a year.  If this is not been completed as directed by two years the SCOTUS needs to act or just close the doors since their orders are worthless and clearly being ignored by a lower court with no reprocussions. 

If I was Thomas I'd take it back and make the 7th regret absolutely every word of the decision. 

 

[Monty80]

My guess is that if and when agrees to hear the case, the 7th Circus will rule that it is unconstitutional so that the case isn't heard by SCOTUS. That way it only effects the 7th circus and not the entire country.  If SCOTUS denies the petition, the 7th will rule that it's constitutional. Just my guess though. I've been wrong before.

[yurimodin]

On 5/10/2026 at 8:30 PM, Monty80 said:

My guess is that if and when agrees to hear the case, the 7th Circus will rule that it is unconstitutional so that the case isn't heard by SCOTUS. That way it only effects the 7th circus and not the entire country.  If SCOTUS denies the petition, the 7th will rule that it's constitutional. Just my guess though. I've been wrong before.

 

Games like this being played with constitutional rights is ABSOLUTELY the reason we need some 1983 Deprivation of Rights cases.

[Monty80]

 

On 5/10/2026 at 8:30 PM, Monty80 said:

My guess is that if and when ***SCOTUS*** agrees to hear the case, the 7th Circus will rule that it is unconstitutional so that the case isn't heard by SCOTUS. That way it only ***AFFECTS*** the 7th Circus and not the entire country.  If SCOTUS denies the petition, the 7th will rule that it's constitutional. Just my guess though. I've been wrong before.

 

On 5/15/2026 at 11:44 AM, yurimodin said:

 

Games like this being played with constitutional rights is ABSOLUTELY the reason we need some 1983 Deprivation of Rights cases.

 And I apparently think faster than I type with all the words that I leave out. Ladies and gentlemen, please remember that proofreading is your friend because I sure don't.

[Euler]

On May 11 in appellate court, plaintiffs cited Benson v US (DC panel decision striking down DC's magazine ban) as an additional authority.

On May 19, defendants responded that Benson v US is not binding on the 7th Circuit and is at odds with every other appellate ruling on magazine bans.

... also the DC appeals court has granted Benson an en banc rehearing, which will probably reverse the panel.

[EdDinIL]

On 5/22/2026 at 9:52 PM, Euler said:

On May 11 in appellate court, plaintiffs cited Benson v US (DC panel decision striking down DC's magazine ban) as an additional authority.

On May 19, defendants responded that Benson v US is not binding on the 7th Circuit and is at odds with every other appellate ruling on magazine bans.

... also the DC appeals court has granted Benson an en banc rehearing, which will probably reverse the panel.

If the en banc rehearing reverses Benson, does that automatically void the plaintiffs' citation, or do the plaintiffs have to withdraw that citation themselves?

 

If the plaintiffs have to withdraw the citation themselves, I can see the 7CA panel playing games and saying "Plaintiffs agree with the mag ban!" and handing them the L before the withdrawal.  I hope the judicial system is better than that, though.

[davel501]

On 5/23/2026 at 12:02 PM, EdDinIL said:

If the en banc rehearing reverses Benson, does that automatically void the plaintiffs' citation, or do the plaintiffs have to withdraw that citation themselves?

 

If the plaintiffs have to withdraw the citation themselves, I can see the 7CA panel playing games and saying "Plaintiffs agree with the mag ban!" and handing them the L before the withdrawal.  I hope the judicial system is better than that, though.

 

I'd expect the other side to file the new ruling as an additional authority without the part about it not being binding. Probably sprinkle in some stuff about the last 100 years of rulings to try to use it to make the arguments for people's rights seem absurd. 

[Euler]

Today's grant of certiorari for Viramontes practically guarantees that CA7 won't release its opinion in this case until after the Supreme Court issues its Viramontes opinion, probably next summer.

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 6/30/2026 at 4:34 PM, Euler said:

Today's grant of certiorari for Viramontes practically guarantees that CA7 won't release its opinion in this case until after the Supreme Court issues its Viramontes opinion, probably next summer.

If they were smart, which they are not, they would based on reading the writing on the wall... 

 

[Upholder]

My thoughts are a bit different than Euler's. 

 

I suspect that they will release it before the SCOTUS releases their decision next year in Viramontes because Easterbrook wants to put his decision out in the world before SCOTUS hits him over the head with a rolled up newspaper and tells him "NO!  Bad judge!"

 

My guess is that we see it before the end of the year, most likely after the oral arguments in Viramontes.  If they wait that long, it won't get consolidated with the cases accepted today, and it's not like PICA will live longer if they sit on it until next June.

 

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 6/30/2026 at 5:17 PM, Upholder said:

My thoughts are a bit different than Euler's. 

 

I suspect that they will release it before the SCOTUS releases their decision next year in Viramontes because Easterbrook wants to put his decision out in the world before SCOTUS hits him over the head with a rolled up newspaper and tells him "NO!  Bad judge!"

 

My guess is that we see it before the end of the year, most likely after the oral arguments in Viramontes.  If they wait that long, it won't get consolidated with the cases accepted today, and it's not like PICA will live longer if they sit on it until next June.

 

 

It will come out with enough time to spare so that the antis can cite his BS in their Viramontes briefs to SCOTUS.

 

[Euler]

It would certainly be to our benefit if CA7 issued an opinion before Viramontes is decided, because then it could be petitioned to the Supreme Court and GVR'd when Viramontes is decided. I wouldn't expect CA7 to be that accommodating.

Whereas if this case is decided after Viramontes is decided, then CA7 can come up with some reason why Viramontes doesn't apply.

Edited June 30, 2026 at 11:00 PM by Euler

[Tip]

Don’t overlook Easterbrook‘s inflated sense of self worth….

I think it’ll come out before Viramontes so Easterbrook can tell SCOTUS what they should do since he knows best…

[EdDinIL]

On 6/30/2026 at 6:04 PM, Tip said:

Don’t overlook Easterbrook‘s inflated sense of self worth….

He's holding Illinois hostage.  That will keep him smugly satisfied while he sits on the case.  Unless SCOTUS reaches down somehow and nukes the case for him, he'll happily spend his time looking for holes in the Viramontes decision (assuming it goes the way we hope it will).

[EdDinIL]

Paging Euler...
 

 

[Upholder]

Filed opinion of the court by Judge St. Eve. We REVERSE the judgments of the district court, and we REMAND the cases with directions to enter judgments for the defendants. Michael B. Brennan, Chief Judge, dissenting; Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge and Amy J. St. Eve, Circuit Judge. [116] [7538831] [24-3060, 24-3061, 24-3062, 24-3063] (HTP) [Entered: 07/09/2026 02:17 PM]

[EdDinIL]

On 7/1/2026 at 8:48 AM, EdDinIL said:

He's holding Illinois hostage.  That will keep him smugly satisfied while he sits on the case.  Unless SCOTUS reaches down somehow and nukes the case for him, he'll happily spend his time looking for holes in the Viramontes decision (assuming it goes the way we hope it will).

Well, I'm wrong once again.  Shocking, I know.

 

They can appeal straight to SCOTUS, right?  No need for an en banc hearing?  I assume there's no reason to wait for VIramontes to be settled.

[Upholder]

Opinion, obtained via Firearms Policy Coalition

 

2026.07.09_116_OPINION.pdf

[Euler]

So now the case can be petitioned to the Supreme Court, either to be held for an opinion in Viramontes or to be consolidated with it. Either way, the district opinion is available for Viramontes.

[EdDinIL]

 

 

[Molly B.]

Chief Judge Brennan's dissent is 50 pages of the 95 page ruling. Excellent reading.  On to the U.S. Supreme Court, as quickly as possible, please!

[yurimodin]

Let's hope SCOTUS doesn't flub this up like they did with that other recent case. 

[EdDinIL]

On 7/9/2026 at 3:07 PM, Molly B. said:

On to the U.S. Supreme Court, as quickly as possible, please!

Illinois will complain the appeal didn't go en banc first, watch.

 

I just thought of something... The instructions were to the lower court to find for the defendants.  What if the lower court (McGlynn, right?) pulls an FPC and tells them "F you, no."?

[Euler]

On July 9, 2026 at 04:09 PM CDT, EdDinIL said:→

... What if the lower court (McGlynn, right?) pulls an FPC and tells them "F you, no."?

If the courts cease to comply with the law, then there is no law.

The circuit courts still have administrative powers over the district courts within their jurisdictions. The 7th Circuit cannot remove McGlynn, but it can prevent him from ever presiding over any cases, including reassigning cases he already has. If necessary, the 7th Circuit would reassign the case to a different judge that would follow its order.