Case Name: NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, and Village of Oak Park, Illinois, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-25
Citations: 393 F. App'x 390
Docket Number: Nos. 08-4241, 08-4243, 08-4244
Parties: NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, and Village of Oak Park, Illinois, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge, RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 393
Pages: 390–390

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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v. Chicago, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010), both the City of Chicago and the Village of Oak Park repealed the ordinances that had been the subject of this litigation.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).