Federal Judge Tosses DOJ's Montgomery County Carry Suit for Good
U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang dismissed the Justice Department's lawsuit against Montgomery County, Maryland, on Monday, November 9, 2026. The dismissal is with prejudice, so DOJ cannot refile the same claim. The suit targeted Bill 23-26E, the county ordinance that bars carrying within 100 yards of parks, schools, houses of worship, and many other locations. Chuang denied DOJ's request for a preliminary injunction and granted the county's motion to dismiss. He never decided whether the ordinance violates the Second Amendment. He ruled that the Justice Department had no legal authority to bring the case under the federal statute it cited.
Key Details
The ruling turns on a narrow statute and a missing element. DOJ filed under 34 U.S.C. Section 12601, a provision that lets the Attorney General sue a government entity over a pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct by law enforcement officers. DOJ argued that Montgomery County's adoption of Bill 23-26E, and the possibility that local police would enforce it, satisfied that standard.
- Judge: Theodore Chuang, U.S. District Court, Maryland
- Ordinance: Bill 23-26E, 100-yard carry restriction near parks, schools, and houses of worship
- Statute cited: 34 U.S.C. Section 12601
- Ruling: Motion to dismiss granted with prejudice; preliminary injunction denied
- Missing element: No alleged arrests, citations, or enforcement actions under the ordinance
- Prior history: No record of similar enforcement under earlier county firearms rules
- Constitutional question: Not decided
Chuang found that DOJ's complaint identified no unconstitutional arrests, citations, or other actions by county officers. It also pointed to no enforcement history under earlier versions of the county's rules. He called that absence fatal, because the statute requires an actual pattern of police conduct. He rejected the argument that an unconstitutional law sitting on the books is enough. He also contrasted Section 12601 with other civil rights statutes that explicitly let DOJ target broader patterns of resistance. Congress wrote narrower language here, he reasoned. He called DOJ's reading a "breathtakingly broad expansion of federal power" that would need clear congressional authorization.
Background
Section 12601 traces back to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, where it appeared as Section 14141. Congress wrote it to address systemic police misconduct, such as excessive force, unconstitutional searches, and discriminatory enforcement. Federal prosecutors used it for years against police departments. The most prominent example is the 2016 Ferguson, Missouri consent decree, which addressed documented police abuses. Every one of those cases involved what officers actually did on the street.
The Trump administration's Civil Rights Division has taken a different path. It has used Section 12601 to challenge state and local gun laws on the theory that the laws themselves create the pattern. Gun rights groups and the Justice Department have fought over this theory in several jurisdictions. Chuang's opinion now stands as one of the first federal rulings to reject that approach on the merits of the statute. The Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen still governs the underlying Second Amendment test, and Chuang did not reach it here.
Why It Matters for Gun Owners
If you carry in Montgomery County, nothing changes today. Bill 23-26E remains on the books and remains enforceable. The dismissal removes a federal plaintiff, not the ordinance. Carriers near parks, schools, and houses of worship in the county still face state and local penalties for violations. Read the ordinance's map before you carry, because a 100-yard buffer is wide and easy to cross without noticing.
The ruling matters more for the wider map. Maryland already has its own carry restrictions, and advocates across the state have challenged them. A federal dismissal based on statutory authority does not clear the way for DOJ to bring similar suits in New Jersey, New York, Illinois, or California under the same theory. Gun owners in those states should expect local governments to cite this ruling when they defend their own restrictions. Watch for any DOJ appeal or any new filing that tries to cure the statutory defect by pointing to actual enforcement.
DownRange Analysis
Chuang took the easy path, and that is the right kind of judicial restraint. He did not hand Second Amendment advocates a merits win, and that matters. The county's 100-yard zones have not been tested against Bruen's text-and-history standard in this case. A government that wants to restrict carry must still show a historical analogue for sensitive places, and the county has to make that showing in future litigation.
Gun owners should not treat this as a victory for the ordinance. Treat it as a reminder that federal lawsuits are a blunt tool, and that the real fight belongs in private Second Amendment suits. Separate challenges by gun rights groups are still moving, and the Supreme Court is weighing whether to take up Novotny v. Moore, a case that targets Maryland's gun-free zones. If the Court grants review, it could reach Montgomery County's rules directly. Carry in the county as the law stands today, document your route, and support the groups that are actually litigating the merits.
