Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A 2024 state law that stripped all Indiana municipalities of their authority to sue the gun industry is constitutional, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Monday in overturning a Lake Superior Court judge’s decision not to dismiss a 26-year-old-lawsuit brought by the City of Gary against gun manufacturers and sellers.
The city filed a lawsuit in 1999 to hold gun manufacturers and sellers liable for firearms later used in crimes, and the case has gone through several appeals over the decades.
In its ruling Monday, the appellate court found the city had failed to establish that the state’s Reservation Statute, established with the 2024 passage of House Enrolled Act 1235, is an unconstitutional special law.
“The City has failed to show that retroactive application of the Reservation Statute violates any vested right or constitutional guarantee held by the City. Unfair as it may appear, the legislature can legally do exactly what it did in this case, and we cannot second guess its public policy determinations in this regard,” Chief Judge Robert Altice wrote for the appellate court.
The appellate court remanded the case to the Lake Superior Court, with instructions to dismiss the lawsuit.
The City of Gary did not immediately respond to The Indiana Lawyer’s request for comment.
The Indiana Attorney General’s Office directed The Lawyer to comments posted by Attorney General Todd Rokita on X.
Rokita wrote that the appellate court’s decision upholds the General Assembly’s legislation that states only the State of Indiana, not individual cities, may pursue such actions against the firearms industry.
“This result helps to ensure that firearms remain available to law-abiding citizens, preventing a single city or handful of cities from using lawsuits to force changes to the way they are sold. Our office will continue defending your constitutional rights and keeping firearms accessible to responsible, law-abiding citizens,” Rokita said.
According to court documents, Gary filed the lawsuit in 1999 against 11 gun manufacturers, a wholesaler, five retailers and others, alleging they knowingly designed, marketed or sold firearms in ways that fueled illegal trafficking.
Since then, the case has survived three separate appeals over motions for judgment on the pleadings — most recently in 2019 — with appellate courts repeatedly allowing Gary to proceed under a public-nuisance theory.
The new dispute centered on a 2024 Indiana law that bars cities and counties from suing firearm manufacturers, sellers, dealers or trade associations. Under the statute, only the state may bring such actions. Lawmakers also made the restriction retroactive, applying it to any lawsuit filed “before, after, or on August 27, 1999.”
Despite that directive, Lake Superior Judge John Sedia refused to dismiss the case in August 2024. He ruled that while Gary had not shown the statute to be unconstitutional on its face, applying it retroactively to terminate a decades-old lawsuit would violate the city’s vested rights and “result in manifest injustice.” Sedia wrote the General Assembly “cannot end this lawsuit,” concluding it must be allowed to run its course.
The gun-industry defendants appealed, and the state — supporting the new law — intervened as an appellant.
The case has drawn strong political reaction. Rokita urged the Court of Appeals in February to throw out Gary’s lawsuit, arguing the legislature defines the powers cities may exercise and has expressly barred local governments from suing the gun industry.
Democrats criticized the statute before its passage, calling it an attempt to quash the only remaining municipal gun-industry lawsuit in the country.
In its appellee’s brief, the city argued that there should be “limits on the Legislature’s ability to reach out and quash a particular ongoing lawsuit” and that “a legislative end-run around existing litigation – cherry-picking a plaintiff with a stated plan to abandon the case – presents an unprecedented challenge to the independence of Indiana’s judiciary.”
But the appellate court ruled the law is a general law and does not single out Gary (or its lawsuit) by name or by unique characteristic (such as by population parameters).
“Rather, the Reservation Statute bars any political subdivision anywhere in the state from independently bringing or maintaining a covered action, regardless of when the action was or is filed. A plain reading of the statute shows statewide application and the mere fact that only one political subdivision – the City – is currently maintaining such an action does not suggest otherwise,” Altice wrote for the court.
The case is Smith & Wesson Corp., et al. v. City of Gary, Indiana, 24A-CT-2381.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.