admin
The Justice Department has stepped into the ring in the U.S. Virgin Islands — and it didn’t come to play nice. On July 22, 2026, DOJ filed a second motion asking a federal court to block the territory’s new Act 9113, which bans magazines that hold more than 15 rounds. The motion calls the law “glaringly unconstitutional” and asks the court to stop local police from enforcing the magazine and transfer restrictions while the case moves forward.
DOJ asks for a quick preliminary injunction to halt Act 9113
The government’s motion asks the District Court (St. Thomas and St. John division) to issue a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of Act 9113’s core magazine and transfer provisions. DOJ says the court should bar enforcement of any limit on magazines holding 30 rounds or fewer and stop the territory from treating a firearm differently just because it was made to accept more than 15 rounds. The filing, signed locally by U.S. Attorney Adam Sleeper and led by DOJ Civil Rights Division lawyers, asks the court to hear the motion at the case’s already-scheduled August 19 hearing.
Why DOJ cites the Third Circuit’s en banc ruling
DOJ’s legal hook is the Third Circuit’s recent en banc decision in Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General of New Jersey. That ruling held New Jersey’s bans on semiautomatic rifles and so-called large-capacity magazines violate the Second Amendment. Because the Virgin Islands sits in the Third Circuit, DOJ argues that the ANJRPC decision is controlling precedent — so Act 9113’s magazine ban is an obvious mismatch with settled circuit law. In the motion, DOJ states plainly: ANJRPC “squarely holds” the challenged magazine ban is unconstitutional.
Enforcement, politics, and what comes next
The Virgin Islands Police Department has publicly backed Act 9113, and local officials clearly want to enforce it. DOJ counters that point by using testimony showing the police planned to rely on the new law — exactly the kind of enforcement that triggers the need for immediate federal relief. The government also invokes federal civil‑rights authority that lets DOJ seek injunctions where law enforcement policies and practices deprive people of constitutional rights. If the court grants the injunction, VIPD would be barred from enforcing the magazine and transfer rules while the wider case proceeds. If the court declines, the conflict will continue up the litigation ladder.
Final take: courts should check overreaching local bans
Here’s the plain truth: politicians eager to score headlines should not be allowed to trample constitutional rights and then hide behind local police to do the dirty work. DOJ’s motion is blunt and to the point — exactly what’s needed when a territorial law collides with binding circuit precedent. Courts should act fast to prevent needless arrests and legal chaos. Watch the August hearing: it will tell us whether judges will guard the Second Amendment or let politicians keep playing legislator-by-the-seat-of-their-pants with firearms law.
