Filed: Aug. 25, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 August 25, 2010 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK , Chief Judge WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge Nos. 08-4241, 08-4243 & 08-4244 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, On Remand from the Supreme Court of the v. United States. C ITY OF C HICAGO, ILLINOIS, and VILLAGE OF OAK
Summary: NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 August 25, 2010 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK , Chief Judge WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge Nos. 08-4241, 08-4243 & 08-4244 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, On Remand from the Supreme Court of the v. United States. C ITY OF C HICAGO, ILLINOIS, and VILLAGE OF OAK ..
More
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
August 25, 2010
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK , Chief Judge
WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge
Nos. 08-4241, 08-4243 & 08-4244
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA,
INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, On Remand from the
Supreme Court of the
v. United States.
C ITY OF C HICAGO, ILLINOIS, and VILLAGE OF
OAK PARK , ILLINOIS,
Defendants-Appellees.
Order
After the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald v. Chicago,
130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010),
both the City of Chicago and the Village of Oak Park repealed the ordinances that had
been the subject of this litigation. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s judgments
and remand with instructions to dismiss as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.,
340 U.S. 36 (1950).
Plaintiffs contend that the new ordinances enacted to supersede the ones
challenged in these suits have constitutional flaws. Plaintiffs are entitled to pursue those
contentions in new suits. The subject matter of this litigation, however, no longer exists.
Nos. 08-4241, 08-4243 & 08-4244 Page 2
If plaintiffs believe that the repeals entitle them to attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C.
§1988, they may file appropriate motions in the district court. We do not express any
opinion on the question whether the repealers, enacted before the Supreme Court’s
decision could be implemented on remand, affect the availability of fees under the
approach of Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health &
Human Resources,
532 U.S. 598 (2001).