Jackson Jambalaya

 The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that switchblades are indeed legal as it found the Federal Switchblade Act to be unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.  

In sum, the government fails to meet its burden to establish that the manner in which § 1242 regulates switchblade knives is consistent with the Second Amendment’s history, principles, and tradition. Accordingly, we determine that § 1242 violates the Second Amendment.

The plaintiffs’ challenge to § 1243, on the other hand, fails. Again, § 1243 regulates the manufacture, sale, and possession of switchblade knives “within any Territory or possession of the United States, within Indian country . . . or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” In their briefing and at oral argument, the challengers made it explicit that they bring only a facial challenge to the statute. And, litigating constitutional claims as facial challenges “comes at a cost.” Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707, 723 (2024). To bring a facial challenge outside the First Amendment context, a plaintiff must “establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.”16 United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987); see also Rahimi, 602 U.S. at 693 (applying the no-set-of-circumstances standard to a Second Amendment challenge); Richard H. Fallon, Jr., et al., Hart and Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System 184–95 (7th ed. 2015) (discussing non-First Amendment facial challenges). The government, by contrast, needs to only demonstrate that § 1243 is “constitutional in some of its applications.” Rahimi, 602 U.S. at 693.