Case Title: Fooks v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 24pc/22

State: maryland

Court: Maryland Supreme Court

Date: 2023-08-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
Circuit Court for Wicomico County 
Case No. C-22-CR-21-000030 
 
Argued:  March 2, 2023 
 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT 
 
OF MARYLAND* 
 
No. 24 
 
September Term, 2022 
__________________________________ 
 
ROBERT L. FOOKS 
 
v.  
 
STATE OF MARYLAND 
__________________________________ 
 
Fader, C.J., 
Watts, 
Hotten, 
Booth, 
Biran, 
Gould, 
Eaves, 
 
JJ. 
__________________________________ 
 
Per Curiam Order 
Gould, J., dissents. 
__________________________________ 
 
Filed: August 15, 2023 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
*During the November 8, 2022 general election, the voters of Maryland ratified a 
constitutional amendment changing the name of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court 
of Maryland.  The name change took effect on December 14, 2022.
Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials 
Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this 
document is authentic. 
 
Gregory Hilton, Clerk 
2023-08-15 09:46-04:00
O R D E R 
Upon consideration of the State’s unopposed motion to stay this case pending 
a decision by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Rahimi, Docket 
No. 22-915, October Term, 2023, it is this 15th day of August 2023, by the Supreme 
Court of Maryland, a majority of the Court concurring,  
 
ORDERED that the motion is granted; and it is further 
ORDERED that, pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in 
United States v. Rahimi, Docket No. 22-915, October Term, 2023, this case is stayed. 
Upon a final disposition by the United States Supreme Court in Rahimi, the parties 
shall promptly notify the Clerk and propose a schedule for supplemental briefing. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        /s/ Matthew J. Fader 
 
    Chief Justice 
ROBERT L. FOOKS 
 
 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF MARYLAND 
 
* 
 
* 
 
* 
 
* 
 
* 
 
* 
     IN THE 
 
     SUPREME COURT 
 
     OF MARYLAND 
 
     No. 24 
 
     September Term, 2022  
Circuit Court for Wicomico County 
Case No. C-22-CR-21-000030 
Argued: March 2, 2023                                                                          IN THE SUPREME COURT 
 
OF MARYLAND* 
 
No. 24 
 
 
September Term, 2022 
 
 
 
ROBERT L. FOOKS 
 
v. 
 
 
STATE OF MARYLAND 
 
 
 
Fader, C.J., 
Watts, 
Hotten, 
Booth, 
Biran, 
Gould, 
Eaves, 
 
JJ. 
 
 
 
Dissenting Opinion by Gould, J. 
 
 
 
Filed: August 15, 2023 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
*During the November 8, 2022 general election, the voters of Maryland ratified a 
constitutional amendment changing the name of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court 
of Maryland. The name change took effect on December 14, 2022.
Respectfully, I dissent from the Court’s Order staying this case pending the Supreme 
 
Court of the United States’ disposition of United States v. Rahimi, No. 22-915, 2023 WL 
 
4278450 (U.S. Jun. 30, 2023). 
 
The State filed an Unopposed Motion to Stay this case pending the outcome of 
 
 
Rahimi, arguing that: 
 
[T]he U.S. Supreme Court undoubtedly will clarify the scope of the Second 
Amendment—particularly whether restrictions on the possession of firearms 
by non-felons are constitutional—and will offer further guidance on how to 
apply the new standard for assessing Second Amendment claims enunciated 
in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 
(2022). Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court likely will address some of 
same [sic] historical sources and arguments that the parties have discussed in 
Fooks. In sum, the U.S. Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision in Rahimi 
will surely overlap with the issues and arguments currently before this Court 
in Fooks. 
 
 
Resp’t’s Unopp’d Mot. to Stay 2. 
 
In my view, the State has not offered a sufficient reason to stay this case. First, the 
issue in Rahimi is fundamentally different than the one presented here.  In Rahimi, the 
Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the following question: “Whether 18 U.S.C. 
922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic- 
violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.” There, the statute 
at issue is a federal statute; the statute at issue here is a Maryland statute.  That difference 
alone warrants a different constitutional analysis under the system of federalism established 
in the United States Constitution. 
Moreover, even if the Supreme Court’s analysis in Rahimi could be helpful, so 
what?  This Court grants certiorari when it is “desirable and in the public interest.”  Md.
Code Ann. (1974, 2020 Repl. Vol.), Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 12-203. We did so here. Our job, 
therefore, is to decide this case by applying the governing principles of law as they now 
exist. As Chief Judge Bell put it when dissenting from the dismissal of a writ of certiorari 
as improvidently granted: 
The Court of Appeals has a responsibility to decide any case properly 
presented that meets the threshold criteria: presenting issues that it is 
desirable and in the public interest to decide. That responsibility, as to any 
issue, may be triggered by such considerations as novelty, complexity, 
conflicting precedents, impact or  importance and  the  breadth or  extent 
thereof and likelihood of recurrence. 
 
 
Koenig v. State, 368 Md. 150, 151 (2002) (Bell, C.J., dissenting). 
 
 
The case has been fully briefed and argued, and is awaiting this Court’s decision. 
There’s no need or compelling reason to wait for the Supreme Court’s decision in Rahimi. 
And in doing so, we are passing on the opportunity to weigh in on an issue of significant 
local and national importance, which is unfortunate, to say the least. 
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2