The Trump administration and D.C. officials, normally at odds over the city’s strict gun laws, had both asked the court to reconsider the case.
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals on Thursday effectively revived a local ban on gun magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition, pending a rehearing of the case.
A majority of the court’s judges approved a request by the city of Washington to rehear the case “en banc,” before all active judges of the court, after a three-judge panel had struck down the ban as unconstitutional in March. Washington’s request received support from the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in the city, creating a rare if awkward alliance in a gun case.
As is typical in such orders, the judges did not elaborate on their reasoning, but en banc hearings are usually only granted to cases involving a question of exceptional importance. The city and the U.S. attorney’s office had argued in their court filings that the ruling eliminating the ban would create a significant threat to public safety in the nation’s capital.
The D.C. attorney general’s office, which represents the city in court, declined to comment on the ruling.
On March 5, a three-judge panel of the court reversed the criminal conviction of Tyree Benson, who was arrested in 2022 for possessing an unregistered handgun with a magazine that could contain 30 rounds of ammunition. Mr. Benson was convicted of four separate charges for possessing the unregistered gun, the magazine, the ammunition in the magazine and for carrying the gun without a license. The panel vacated all those convictions, ruling that the unconstitutional magazine ban had tainted the larger criminal case.
“We are not blind to the blight of gun violence in this country and the horrors it visits on our citizenry,” wrote Judge Joshua Deahl, an appointee of President Trump, for the two-judge majority on the split three-judge panel. But, he continued, his hands were tied by Supreme Court precedent, the fact that large-capacity magazines “are arms in common and ubiquitous use,” as well as the lack of “history or tradition” of any blanket prohibition on them.