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.
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 dissentfrom the Court’s Orderstaying 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 domesticviolence 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