Opinion
No. 24, Sept. Term, 2022
08-15-2023
Robert L. FOOKS v. STATE of Maryland
Argued by Peter F. Rose, Asst. Public Defender ( Natasha M. Dartigue, Public Defender of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioner Argued by Andrew J. DiMiceli, Asst. Atty. Gen. ( Anthony G. Brown, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondent
Argued by Peter F. Rose, Asst. Public Defender ( Natasha M. Dartigue, Public Defender of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioner
Argued by Andrew J. DiMiceli, Asst. Atty. Gen. ( Anthony G. Brown, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondent
Argued before: Fader, C.J., Watts, Hotten, Booth, Biran, Gould, Eaves, JJ.
ORDER
Per Curiam Order
Gould, J., filed dissenting opinion. Upon consideration of the State's unopposed motion to stay this case pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Rahimi , Docket No. 22-915, October Term, 2023, it is this 15th day of August 2023, by the Supreme Court of Maryland, a majority of the Court concurring,
ORDERED that the motion is granted; and it is further ORDERED that, pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Rahimi , Docket No. 22-915, October Term, 2023, this case is stayed. Upon a final disposition by the United States Supreme Court in Rahimi , the parties shall promptly notify the Clerk and propose a schedule for supplemental briefing.
Gould, J., dissents.
Gould, J., dissenting.
Respectfully, I dissent from the Court's Order staying this case pending the Supreme Court of the United States’ disposition of United States v. Rahimi , No. 22-915, ––– U.S. ––––, 143 S.Ct. 2688, ––– L.Ed.2d –––– (U.S. Jun. 30, 2023).
The State filed an Unopposed Motion to Stay this case pending the outcome of Rahimi , arguing that:
[T]he U.S. Supreme Court undoubtedly will clarify the scope of the Second Amendment—particularly whether restrictions on the possession of firearms by non-felons are constitutional—and will offer further guidance on how to
apply the new standard for assessing Second Amendment claims enunciated in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen [––– U.S. ––––], 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court likely will address some of same [sic] historical sources and arguments that the parties have discussed in Fooks . In sum, the U.S. Supreme Court's forthcoming decision in Rahimi will surely overlap with the issues and arguments currently before this Court in Fooks .
Resp't’s Unopp'd Mot. to Stay 2.
In my view, the State has not offered a sufficient reason to stay this case. First, the issue in Rahimi is fundamentally different than the one presented here. In Rahimi , the Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the following question: "Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face." There, the statute at issue is a federal statute; the statute at issue here is a Maryland statute. That difference alone warrants a different constitutional analysis under the system of federalism established in the United States Constitution.
Moreover, even if the Supreme Court's analysis in Rahimi could be helpful, so what? This Court grants certiorari when it is "desirable and in the public interest." Md. Code Ann. (1974, 2020 Repl. Vol.), Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 12-203. We did so here. Our job, therefore, is to decide this case by applying the governing principles of law as they now exist. As Chief Judge Bell put it when dissenting from the dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted:
The Court of Appeals has a responsibility to decide any case properly presented that meets the threshold criteria: presenting issues that it is desirable and in the public interest to decide. That responsibility, as to any issue, may be triggered by such considerations as novelty, complexity, conflicting precedents, impact or importance and the breadth or extent thereof and likelihood of recurrence.
Koenig v. State , 368 Md. 150, 151, 792 A.2d 1124 (2002) (Bell, C.J., dissenting).
The case has been fully briefed and argued, and is awaiting this Court's decision. There's no need or compelling reason to wait for the Supreme Court's decision in Rahimi . And in doing so, we are passing on the opportunity to weigh in on an issue of significant local and national importance, which is unfortunate, to say the least.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.