Circuit Court for Wicomico County

Case No. C

- 2 2

- C R

- 2 1

- 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 1 5 , 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 1 5 th day of August 2023, by the Supreme

Court of Maryla nd, 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, 20 22C i r c u it C our t fo r W ic om ico C oun ty

C a s e N o

. C

- 22

- CR

- 21

- 00 0 030

A rgu e d : Ma r c h 2

, 2 0 2 3 IN THE S UPR E ME C OURT

OF MA R YLA N D *

No. 24

September Term, 2 022

ROBERT L. F O OKS

v.

STATE O F M A RYL A ND

Fader, C.J

. , Watts,

Hotten,

Booth,

Biran,

Gould,

Eaves,

JJ.

Dissenting Opin i on by Gould, J.

Filed: August 1 5 , 2023

*During the Nov e m b er 8, 2022 general e l ection, the voters of Maryland ratifi e d a

constituti o nal am e nd m ent changi n g the n a me of the Cou r t of A p peals to the S u preme C ourt

of Maryla n d. The n a m e change to o k effect on December 1 4, 202 2

.Respectful l y, I diss e nt f rom the Cou r t’s Order s taying t his c a se p e ndi n g the Supre m e

Court of t h e U n ited S t ates’ d i spositi o n of U n ited St a tes v

. R a himi

, No. 22

- 915, 2023 WL

4278450 ( U.S. J u n. 30, 2023).

The State filed an Un opposed Motion to S t ay this case p e nding t he outc o me of

Rahimi

, ar g uing t h at:

[T]he U.S. Supr e me C ourt und o ubtedly will c larify the scope of the Second

Amendme n t

— part i cul a rly whe t her r e strictio n s on t he p o ssessi o n of fi r earms

by non

- felons are c ons t itutional

— and will of f er further guidan c e on how to

apply the n e w stan d ard for assess i ng Sec o nd Amendme n t claims e n unciated

in New Y o rk S t ate R ifle & P istol Asso c iation, I nc. v. Bruen

, 142 S. Ct. 2111

(2022). Fur t hermor e

, t he U.S. Su p reme C o u r t likely will a ddress s ome of

same [sic] histo r ical s o urces and argum e nts t h at the parties have di s c ussed in

Fooks

. In sum, t h e U

. S. Supr e me Cou r t’s f o rthcoming decisi o n in Rahimi

will sur e ly o v erlap wi t h the i ssues and argu m ents curr e ntly before t h is Court

in Fooks

.

Resp’t’s U nopp’d Mot. to Stay 2.

In my vi e w, the State h as not of f ered a s uffici e nt reason to stay this ca se. Firs t

, the

issue in Rahimi is fu n damentally differe n t t h an the one prese n ted h ere. In R ahimi

, the

Supreme C ourt gra n t e d certiorari to decide t he followi n g quest i on: “Whether 18 U.S. C

.

922(g)(8), w h ich pro h ibits the posse s sion of firearms by perso n s subject to dom e stic

violence re s training or d ers, violates the Se c ond Amendm e nt on i t s fac e .” There, t h e statute

at issue is a federal statute; the statute at issue here is a Maryland sta t ute. That difference

alone war r ants a differ e nt const i tutional anal y s i s under the s ystem of f e deralism establi s hed

in the Uni t ed Stat e s C o nstitution.

Moreover, ev e n if the Supreme Cour t ’s ana l ysis in Rahimi c o uld be helpful, so

what? This Court gra n ts certior a ri w h en it is “desirable and i n the p ublic in t erest.” M d

.Code An n

. (197 4

, 2020 Repl. V o l.), Ct s

. & J ud

. Proc. § 12

- 203. We d id so here. Our j ob,

therefore, is to d ecide t his case by app l ying t h e gove r ning princi p les of law as they now

exist. As Chief Ju d ge Bell put it when di s sen t ing from the dis m issal of a writ of certiorari

as improv i dently g ran t ed:

The Court of App e als has a responsibil i ty to decide any case p r operly

presented t hat m e ets the thres h old cri t eria: presenti n g issu e s th a t it is

desirable and in t he p u blic interest to de c ide. That respons i bility, as to any

issue, may be tri g ge r ed by such consid e ra t ions as n o velty, c o m plexity,

conflicting prec e dents, impact or impor t an c e and the breadth or extent

thereof and l ikelih o od of recurrence.

Koenig v. S tate

, 3 6 8 M d. 150, 1 5 1 (2002) (Be l l, C.J., di s sentin g ).

The case has been ful l y briefed and argu e d, a nd is awaiti n g t h is Co urt’s de c ision.

There’s no n e ed or c o mpelling reason to wait for t he S upreme Co u r t ’s decis i on i n R a himi

.

And in doing so, we a r e passing on the oppor t unity to weigh in on an issue of significant

local and n a tional i mp o rtance, whi c h is un f or t unate, to s a y the le a st.

According l y, I resp e ct f

ully disse n t.

2