Case ID: f-appx_393/html/0390-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, and Village of Oak Park, Illinois, Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 08-4241, 08-4243, 08-4244.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    Aug. 25, 2010.
    Stephen A. Kolodziej, Attorney, Brenner, Ford & Monroe, William N. Howard, Attorney, Freeborn & Peters, Chicago, IL, Alan Gura, Attorney, Gura & Possessky, Alexandria, VA, Stephen P. Halbrook, Attorney, Fairfax, VA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Mara S. Georges, Attorney, Benna R. Solomon, Attorney, Office of the Corporation Counsel, Andrew W. Worseck, Attorney, City of Chicago Law Department, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge, RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge.
   Order

After the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald v. Chicago, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010), both the City of Chicago and the Village of Oak Park repealed the ordinances that had been the subject of this litigation.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, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 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.

If plaintiffs believe that the repeals entitle them to attorneys’ fees under 42 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, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001).