Appeals Court hears dispute over whether Superior Court or district court should resolve Bruen historical inquiry

Single Justice John Englander of the Massachusetts Appeals Court heard oral argument in case 25J0050, Inray Dana Dupras Sr., on whether the Superior Court should decide the historical inquiry set out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bruen or whether the issue must be developed first in the district court.

The question before the single justice arose after a Superior Court judge remanded the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on factual matters related to the licensing authority's decision to suspend Dupras's firearms license. The Commonwealth, represented by Tim Casey, assistant attorney general, asked the single justice to vacate the Superior Court's remand and direct the Superior Court to resolve the Bruen historical inquiry as a matter of law. Mr. Patton, counsel for Inray Dana Dupras Sr., argued the remand was appropriate and that factual development in the district court could be necessary.

"I'm not sure I fully understand what you want or whether I can do it," Single Justice Englander told the lawyers during the argument, explaining his concern about the proper procedural forum. The justice repeatedly questioned whether the district court must address the constitutional challenge "in the first instance" before the Superior Court may resolve it on certiorari review.

Casey told the court the Commonwealth's intervention in Superior Court included full briefing on Bruen's two-step framework (the initial textual inquiry and the follow-on historical inquiry) and that the Commonwealth had submitted the legal and historical materials it considered necessary. He argued prudential and public-interest reasons supported resolving the legal question in Superior Court so an appellate court could consider it, noting numerous similar district‑court matters are pending. The Commonwealth said it had submitted briefs and an appendix of materials to the Superior Court and would be prepared to proceed on the record presented there.

Mr. Patton acknowledged that Bruen frames the historical inquiry as a legal question but said Superior Court review did not eliminate factual disputes that a trial court might need to resolve. He told the court that some factual disagreements could make an evidentiary process appropriate and that the district court has a statutory role under the certiorari and review provisions at issue.

The single justice and counsel also discussed statutory language and standards of review. The transcript and argument referenced statutory provisions cited in filings as "1 31 d" (the licensing/unsuitability provision) and "1 31 f" (the judicial-review/certiorari provision), and counsel discussed amendments to the licensing provision in 2022 and later statutory changes. Counsel cited state and federal precedents discussed in briefing, including Bruen, Rahimi, and Heller, as well as SJC decisions the parties filed for the court's consideration. Counsel for the Commonwealth noted practical burdens: dozens of district-court matters raising similar constitutional claims, and the Attorney General's office typically intervening at the Superior Court level rather than in each district-court proceeding.

After extended questioning of both sides, Single Justice Englander took the case under advisement and said he would issue a written decision. "I probably will write something, and I'll get it out, reasonably quickly as I can," he said at the close of argument.

Matters under advisement; no ruling was issued from the bench.