There has been some Shenanigans happening in the case of Ezell v. Chicago. Ezell is the case that challenges Chicago’s prohibition on shooting ranges on both First and Second Amendment grounds.
Alan Gura is the attorney in this case, and I’m fortunate to have seem seen some of the transcripts from this case so far. In short, here’s what’s going on. Everyone was playing nice with each other until Chicago filed a Motion to Reassign for Relatedness, suggesting that Ezell is close enough to Benson (NRA funded case) they ought to be heard by the same judge. Gura perceived this as a delaying tactic, and retaliated by filing for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), asking the court to stop the city from enforcing the range ban until the preliminary injunction is ruled on. The standard for this would seem to be irreparable harm.
Short of it is that the judge denied to TRO, using an intermediate scrutiny standard. I should note that from the transcripts, he denied without prejudice, which means the plaintiff is still free to raise the argument that strict scrutiny ought to be the standard later in the case. The judge seems to have an open mind, and a desire to take the issue seriously, which is why I would imagine Chicago would like to get this case reassigned.
I would be bad if Ezell were eventually consolidated with Benson. They are very different cases, Ezell is narrow, and the other very broad. I don’t think it would be wise to put all our eggs in one very broad basket, with lots of issues for the Court to consider.
I’m not sure I can blame the judge for not issuing a TRO on the range ban – presumably there are no ranges that would otherwise immediately open to the public under the authority of Chicago, no?
The only folks you really have to fight for your freedom turns out to be your own government.