John Monroe Argues Case to Supreme Court of Georgia

May 18, 2023 -- John Monroe argued a case before the Supreme Court of Georgia today, seeking to reverse a lower court's ruling that judicial immunity and the state constitution prohibit an award of attorney's fees against a probate judge that wrongfully denies a weapons carry license application. The firm represents a client who was denied a weapons carry license and the client successfully obtained a court order requiring the probate judge to issue the license. Even though state law says that a successful plaintiff in such a case shall be entitled to an award of attorney's fees, the trial court denied a motion for fees. The case is Roberts v. Cuthpert and the video of the argument may be viewed here: https://www.gasupreme.us/oa-may-18-2023/

Court Reinstates Challenge to Foster Parent Carry

May 17, 2023 -- The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin has vacated a local court judgment ratifying a ban on foster parents' carrying firearms in the presence of foster children. Foster parents in Wisconsin represented by the firm had challenged the ban, as well as a requirement to store all firearms at home unloaded and locked, separately from the ammunition. The Circuit Court of Washington County granted summary judgment to the State and Washington County, but the Court of Appeals vacated the circuit court's opinion and instructed the circuit court to consider the Supreme Court of the United States' opinion in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. The case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.

Firm Wins at 7th Circuit

June 15, 2022 -- Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit reversed an order dismissing a case brought by firm clients. The clients, public school students in Wisconsin, had worn clothing to school that included images of firearms. After school officials told the students they could not wear such clothing, John Monroe Law, P.C. sued the school officials. The federal district court dismissed the cases, ruling that although the clothing was protected by the First Amendment, the schools could regulate the speech out of "legitimate pedagogical concerns." The 7th Circuit reversed, ruling that the district court applied the wrong test and should instead determine if the officials could "reasonably forecast a substantial disruption" in the school on account of the clothing.