Court dismisses Defense Distributed’s lawsuit over New Jersey “ghost gun” law

Enlarge / The US Courthouse in Austin, Texas. (credit: Nathan Mattise)
Sometimes lawsuits can be like real estate—all about location, location, location. And this week at a federal court in Texas, US District Judge Robert Pitman made a ruling (PDF) that ended Defense Distributed v. Grewal (PDF), the lawsuit brought last summer by the 3D printed firearms company (and colleagues like the Second Amendment Foundation) against New Jersey State Attorney General Gurbir Grewal.
From Defense Distributed's perspective, the core question involved whether a NJ statute aimed at regulating “ghost guns” violated the Constitution. The company believed such a law infringed on its right to free speech (among other legal claims). Judge Pitman, however, did not ultimately have to weigh in on that matter. Instead, he granted New Jersey's motion to dismiss on the grounds that he did not have jurisdiction to hear this matter in the first place.
The case for jurisdiction
Back at a hearing on January 15 (transcript available), attorneys for Defense Distributed and New Jersey outlined their arguments as to why or why not this particular case should be heard in a Texas federal courtroom. Prior legal precedent appeared split, but Defense Distributed attorney Chad Flores argued this case resembled Calder v. Jones. In that ruling, the Supreme Court did allow a court within a state to have personal jurisdiction over a national entity (the National Enquirer, based in Florida then, was sued for defamation in California after copies were distributed in-state). Flores argued that like Enquirer in Calder, the NJ statute does “change what people can say here in Texas,” therefore Pitman should have jurisdiction.
Read 8 remaining paragraphs | Comments