Federal Judge Rejects Attempt to End DOJ Lawsuit Against Virgin Islands

The Justice Department’s lawsuit challenging multiple gun control laws in the U.S. Virgin Islands is already on strong legal ground given the blatant abuses of the Second Amendment in the U.S. territory. The USVI Attorney General’s office is also doing a bang-up job of sabotaging its own efforts to defend the law, and a federal judge has now rejected efforts by the office to strike down the federal government’s request for a preliminary injunction. 

In his order, U.S. District Judge Evan Rikhye chided the Attorney General’s office for even making the motion, noting that it clearly falls outside the federal rule the territory cited as justification for its request. 

 The Defendant invokes Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) in an effort to strike Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Rule 12(f) provides, in relevant part, that: “The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).

… the Court finds that it need not reach the merits ofDefendant’s claims in its Motion to Strike because the term “pleading” under Rule 12(f) is strictly defined by Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). Within its ambit, Rule 7(a) encompasses: “(1) a complaint; (2) an answer to a complaint; (3) an answer to a counterclaim designated as a counterclaim; (4) an answer to a crossclaim; (5) a third-party complaint; (6) an answer to a third-party complaint; and (7) if the court orders one, a reply to an answer.” Therefore, “pleadings” as defined in Rule 7(a) are distinct from “motions,” which are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b). Plaintiff’s filing at ECF No. 64, which Defendant seeks to strike, is a motion for a preliminary injunction.

An error of basic law is embarrassing enough, but Rikhye also scolded the Attorney General’s attorneys for once again failing to comply with his deadlines. 

The Defendant filed its Motion to Strike on July 22, 2026—the precise court-ordered deadline for Defendant to submit its brief regarding the newly enacted Virgin Islands statute, titled the “2026 Second Amendment Rights and Public Safety Act.” Defendant failed to timely file that brief, yet somehow managed to file its Motion to Strike that same day. The following day, Defendant filed its brief one day late, without first seeking leave of Court. Only after submitting the untimely brief did Defendant retroactively seek leave for the late filing. The Court will address this procedural noncompliance under separate order.

The Court cautions Defendant that the people of the Virgin Islands would be far better served by the Office of the Virgin Islands Attorney General if counsel for that office focused attention upon the basic task of adhering to court-ordered deadlines, rather than filing extraneous motions that misapprehend the federal rules of civil procedure.

Ouch. This isn’t the first time the USVI has blown past a court-ordered deadline. In fact, less than a month ago Rikhye blasted the AG’s office for its “glaring lack of attention to basic litigation procedures.” 

Rikhye will hear oral arguments today on the USVI’s motion to dismiss the Justice Department’s lawsuit on the grounds of mootness, and I would love to be in the courtroom to see if he delivers an in-person benchslap to the lawyers with the USVI Attorney General’s office. 

The territory’s legislature abruptly adopted a sweeping overhaul of its gun laws earlier this summer in a blatant attempt to moot the DOJ’s litigation, but in doing so it left itself vulnerable to new challenges by imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines. The Third Circuit, which has jurisdiction over the Virgin Islands, has already struck down New Jersey’s ban on those items, and the DOJ has amended its complaint against the USVI to include the gun and magazine ban as well. 

The DOJ also doesn’t believe its initial complaint is moot. In a July 30 filing, DOJ Second Amendment Section head Barry Arrington argued that even though the new set of laws supposedly addresses the “may issue” nature of the USVI licensing system, the defendants haven’t “repudiated or changed their conduct with respect to all those whom they have already harmed.”

Act 9113 explicitly carries over ongoing prior restrictions VIPD placed on Virgin Islanders’ firearms licenses (§ 452(b)) and requires those who were not permitted licenses for their firearms to surrender them to VIPD (§ 452(c)) with the hope of engaging in a lengthy process to secure the return of lawful firearms (§ 452(d)). And, Defendants have failed to provide required discovery responses that, among other things, would identify the ongoing, aggrieved citizens whose rights VIPD continues to violate. Defendants assertions of repudiation or non-repetition lack credibility. Therefore, they have no hope of proving that it is “absolutely clear” that they will stop violating the Second Amendment.

Today’s hearing isn’t likely to go well for the US Virgin Islands and the attorneys defending the territory’s gun laws. That would be the case even if those attorneys had met the court’s previous deadlines, but add in the pattern of unprofessionalism and errors that have already been called out by Judge Rikhye, and the USVI’s position is even more tenuous. I hope for their sake the territory’s attorneys manage to make it to the courthouse in time for the hearing, but given their past behavior I wouldn’t count on them being able to accomplish even that simple task. 

Editor’s Note: The Democrat Party has been infected by socialism, and it’s spreading FAST. Democrats are claiming there’s nothing to worry about, but we know the truth.

Help us continue to shine a light on the socialist takeover by joining Bearing Arms VIP.  Use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.