Very brief summary - this case was NJ attempting to stop Defense Distributed (DD) from making firearm-related 3D printing files available to NJ residents.
It’s had a tortuous court journey since (edit)2018 bouncing back and forth between TX and NJ circuits as there was a lot of controversy and motions about jurisdiction.
Finally landed in the 3rd Circuit; This is “just” the 3rd circuit portion of the case history:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68031474/defense-distributed-v-attorney-general-new-jersey/
Today the 3rd circuit dismissed the case with prejudice (meaning NJ’s restrictions against DD stand, and DD can’t bring this suit again):
Boooooooo.
https://xcancel.com/gunpolicy/status/2021958518031397043#m
Is it the way im reading this or did defense distributed just not fight this on the 1st A. can an expert break down the 3rds ruling on this.
Defense Distributed has motioned for an en banc re-hearing of the case:
Now being appealed to SCOTUS.
Filing as of yesterday:
My gawd, the venue history is just…tortured:
Hey bro can you explain this in plain English. Lol
Knock knock, Hello Grok?:
Here’s the venue history of Defense Distributed v. Attorney General of New Jersey (also involving names like Grewal, Bruck, or Platkin as successive New Jersey Attorneys General) in plain English.
The case is about Defense Distributed (a Texas group that publishes digital files for 3D-printed firearms) and the Second Amendment Foundation suing New Jersey’s Attorney General over efforts to stop them from sharing those files, including a cease-and-desist letter and related enforcement actions. They claim this violates the First Amendment and other rights.
How the venue fight started
- In July 2018, Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation sued in the Western District of Texas (Austin). They sued the New Jersey Attorney General (and initially some other officials) there because the company is based in Texas and the alleged harm occurred there.
- In early 2019, the Texas district court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction over the New Jersey AG.
- The plaintiffs appealed. In 2020, the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that Texas courts did have personal jurisdiction over the New Jersey AG.
- Meanwhile, after the initial Texas dismissal, the plaintiffs also filed a similar protective lawsuit in the District of New Jersey in 2019. That New Jersey case was stayed while the Texas case proceeded.
The transfer to New Jersey
- Back in Texas after the Fifth Circuit’s remand, the plaintiffs amended their complaint (adding claims involving the U.S. State Department as well).
- The New Jersey AG then asked the Texas court to sever the claims against him from the rest of the case and transfer just those claims to New Jersey under the federal venue-transfer statute (28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)).
- In April 2021, the Western District of Texas granted that request. The claims against the New Jersey AG were cut out and sent to New Jersey. The transfer happened quickly (the case was physically docketed in New Jersey the next day). The plaintiffs appealed the transfer to the Fifth Circuit but did not get an immediate stay, so the transfer went through.
The Fifth Circuit says the transfer was wrong
- In April 2022, in Defense Distributed v. Bruck, a divided Fifth Circuit panel ruled that the Texas district court had abused its discretion. Severing the claims and transferring them to New Jersey was improper. The Fifth Circuit vacated the transfer order.
- Because the case had already left the Fifth Circuit’s territory, the appeals court could not simply order it back. Instead, it directed the Texas district court to formally request that the New Jersey district court return the case.
- The Texas court did so (vacating its own transfer order and asking for the case back).
New Jersey refuses to send it back
- The District of New Jersey (after consolidating the transferred Texas claims with the earlier New Jersey protective suit) refused the return request. It kept the case.
- The Fifth Circuit later reaffirmed (in related Platkin decisions) that the claims belonged in Texas and that the original transfer was unlawful, but it acknowledged it had no power to force a court in another circuit to comply. It noted the unusual breakdown in comity between the courts.
What happened next
- The case stayed in New Jersey. The plaintiffs kept trying to get it transferred back (and the Fifth Circuit continued to say it should be in Texas), but the New Jersey courts declined.
- Litigation continued in the District of New Jersey. The Third Circuit later reviewed aspects of the case (including venue-related issues) and effectively allowed New Jersey to keep it, creating a direct conflict with the Fifth Circuit’s view of the same case.
- As of recent filings (including a 2026 cert petition to the Supreme Court), the venue dispute remains a live circuit split: the Fifth Circuit insists the case belongs in Texas and that the transfer was unlawful; the Third Circuit/New Jersey courts have retained it.
1 Like
NJ is a bag of dicks.
Remember in Finding Nemo when the father called Dory a “delay fish”… that is what NJ is, a delay fish doing everything they can (regardless of constitutionality) to obstruct legal proceedings they do not like.
1 Like
