Grok.com analysis of judges based on question “What is the Second Amendment decision record of 3rd circuit judge …”:
Bibas - Overall Record: 3 pro-gun rights votes (dissents/joins striking down or limiting bans) vs. 2 upholding regulations (but with caveats for as-applied challenges). No evidence of Bibas endorsing “interest-balancing” or deference without historical grounding, marking him as one of the more Second Amendment-sympathetic judges on the Third Circuit.
Bove - Expected Approach: Based on his originalist leanings (evident in confirmation testimony emphasizing textualism), Bove is likely to scrutinize modern regulations for historical analogues, similar to colleagues like Judge Stephanos Bibas. No evidence indicates extreme positions for or against gun rights.
Chagares - Pro-Second Amendment Lean: Chagares’s sole recorded vote aligns with robust protection of individual rights, rejecting overbroad federal restrictions absent historical precedent. This places him in the Third Circuit’s conservative majority on gun issues, similar to Judge Stephanos Bibas.
Chung - Pro-Second Amendment Lean: Chung’s vote in Range supports limiting categorical bans, rejecting blanket felon disarmament absent historical evidence. This mirrors the circuit’s conservative bloc (e.g., Judges Bibas, Hardiman) while fitting her prosecutorial experience in weighing public safety against rights.
Limited Record: With only one published vote and one pending case, her jurisprudence is nascent (less than 2.5 years on the bench). No pre-Bruen opinions or state regulation challenges (e.g., NJ/DE bans) involve her directly.
Freeman - Pro-Second Amendment Lean: Freeman’s vote in Range favors individualized assessments over categorical bans, aligning with the Third Circuit’s conservative-leaning bloc (e.g., Judges Hardiman, Bibas) in limiting § 922(g)(1) post-Bruen. Her argument questions in Range highlight rigorous historical scrutiny, potentially favoring rights in future as-applied claims.
Limited Record: Nearly three years on the bench, but only two involvements— one substantive (pro-rights) and one procedural. No dissents, concurrences, or state regulation cases (e.g., NJ/DE assault weapon bans) feature her prominently. Her defender background suggests sympathy for challenges to overreach in criminal disarmament.
Hardiman - Pro-Second Amendment Stance: Hardiman consistently votes to protect individual gun rights, striking down or limiting federal bans in as-applied challenges (Binderup, Range) and demanding historical evidence for restrictions (Delaware, Harris). His pre-Bruen rulings (Marzzarella, Binderup) laid groundwork for the circuit’s post-Bruen shift toward stricter scrutiny.
Historical Rigor: Hardiman’s opinions reject modern “interest-balancing” (e.g., public safety deference) and require regulations to align with Founding-era practices. He has never upheld a blanket disarmament without historical grounding.
Overall Record: Of six cases, Hardiman voted pro-gun rights in four (striking down/limiting bans in Binderup, Range; dismissing speculative challenges in Plato to avoid diluting rights claims) and upheld narrow regulations in two (Marzzarella, Harris) only with historical analogues. Delaware’s denial of injunction left merits open, suggesting potential for future pro-rights votes.
Krause: Balanced Approach with Rights Lean in As-Applied Contexts: Krause upholds regulations with strong historical roots (e.g., sensitive places in Platkin, felon bans pre-Rahimi) but supports remands for evidence (Drummond) and individualized relief (Range 2024), rejecting categorical exclusions without “dangerousness” proof. Her Rahimi-influenced concurrence marks a pro-rights evolution, prioritizing rebuttable processes over permanent disarmament.
Historical Emphasis: Consistent with Bruen, Krause demands analogues across eras (Founding to Reconstruction), criticizing narrow 1791-only limits in dissents (e.g., Lara v. Commissioner, 2024, where she dissented from denial of en banc on age-based handgun purchase bans for 18-20-year-olds, arguing Reconstruction sources relevant).
Overall Record: Of five cases, Krause voted to uphold restrictions in two (Range 2022 panel; Platkin majority), dissented against rights expansion in one (Range 2023), but favored rights in two post-remand/developments (Drummond remand; Range 2024 concurrence). Her authored opinions (three) blend scrutiny of outliers with deference to tradition, positioning her as moderate-liberal on the Third Circuit.
Matey - Scope: Matey’s Second Amendment involvement is narrow, focusing on challenges to magazine capacity limits and lifetime firearm bans for non-violent offenders. No cases were identified involving assault weapons bans, carry restrictions, or other common gun rights issues.
Ideological Lean: Matey consistently advocates for robust Second Amendment protections, critiquing post-Heller means-end scrutiny (pre-Bruen) and favoring the Bruen framework’s emphasis on text, history, and tradition. His natural law-infused reasoning aligns with originalist interpretations, positioning him as a defender of individual gun rights against expansive regulations. Conservative legal analysts have praised this as a “commitment to defending the 2nd Amendment.”
Montgomery-Reeves: Judge Montgomery-Reeves’ Second Amendment record is sparse but leans toward a restrictive interpretation of disarmament laws in non-violent contexts. Her single vote in Range supported a Second Amendment claim, contributing to a landmark ruling that limits the federal felon-in-possession ban’s scope. This decision has been cited in subsequent challenges (e.g., in the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits) and underscores a cautious, history-based approach to gun regulations. Given her brief federal service (under 2.5 years as of the current date), her record may evolve with future cases.
Phipps: Judge Phipps’ Second Amendment record is minimal but supportive of robust protections in the Range decision, where he joined a strong majority limiting felon disarmament for non-violent individuals. His questioning during arguments reflected a critical view of outdated government positions on the Amendment’s scope, aligning with Heller and Bruen. This stance suggests a textualist, history-focused approach favoring individualized rights over blanket restrictions. With limited caseload exposure, his record may expand as the Third Circuit handles more gun regulation appeals.
Porter: Judge Porter’s Second Amendment record demonstrates a strong originalist bent, consistently applying Bruen’s history-and-tradition test to favor gun rights where historical evidence is lacking. In Range, his majority vote and concurrence supported narrowing felon bans for non-violent offenders, advancing individual protections. In Koons/Siegel, his dissent robustly defended public carry against expansive “sensitive places” laws, critiquing weak analogues and urging stricter scrutiny. This pattern—limited but pro-Second Amendment—reflects his Federalist Society ties and Trump-era appointment, positioning him as a potential swing vote in future en banc or Supreme Court-influenced cases. His record may grow as the Third Circuit addresses ongoing Bruen challenges.
Restrepo: Judge Restrepo’s Second Amendment record, spanning three cases, demonstrates a consistent preference for upholding restrictions on firearm possession and carry, particularly for those with criminal histories or youth status. In Binderup and Range, his dissents supported categorical felon disarmament under historical traditions, critiquing individualized expansions as overly broad. His Pennsylvania v. SAF dissent similarly prioritized public safety in emergencies over presumptive youth rights. This pattern—deferential to government burdens post-Bruen—aligns with his Obama appointment, criminal defense background, and emphasis on community safety. With a modest caseload in this area, future assignments could refine his views amid ongoing Bruen challenges.
Shwartz: Judge Shwartz’s Second Amendment record supports restrictions on firearms, balancing individual rights with public safety through historical deference and empirical evidence. In Association of New Jersey Rifle, she upheld magazine limits pre-Bruen. Her Binderup dissent and Range panel affirmance/ en banc dissent favored categorical felon disarmament, critiquing as-applied expansions as overly broad and contrary to precedent. This pattern—consistent across three cases—aligns with her Obama appointment, prosecutorial background, and emphasis on preventing gun violence. Post-Rahimi, her views may influence future challenges, but her limited exposure in this area (fewer than other judges) suggests evolution with more Bruen caseloads.
Smith: Judge Smith’s Second Amendment record, across three cases, balances presumptive validity of restrictions with limited as-applied relief, prioritizing historical disarmament traditions and public safety. In Binderup, his lead opinion introduced a “dangerousness” framework favoring the government but allowing narrow exceptions. His Range dissents defended categorical felon bans against Bruen-driven expansions. Joining the majority in Pennsylvania v. SAF upheld emergency age restrictions, reflecting deference to crisis regulations. This conservative pattern—pro-restriction with historical grounding—aligns with his G.W. Bush appointment, prosecutorial background, and senior status.
