Rule of Law

Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland

In Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit considered whether it violates the First Amendment for Anne Arundel County to require firearms dealers to provide safety literature to their consumers.

Case Summary

In 2022, Anne Arundel County, Maryland, enacted an ordinance requiring sellers of guns and ammunition in the County to provide literature to their customers regarding suicide prevention and nonviolent conflict resolution. In response, Maryland Shall Issue, Inc., and four firearms retailers brought suit against the County, arguing that the ordinance constituted unlawful compelled speech under the First Amendment. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland ruled in favor of the County, concluding that the regulation is reasonably related to the County’s interest in preventing suicide and violence and not unduly burdensome. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

On July 14, 2023, CAC filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Anne Arundel County. Our brief made two main points.

First, we explained that commercial entities can be required to inform persons about their products and related risks consistent with the First Amendment. In Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the Supreme Court held that it is constitutional to require attorneys to include “purely factual and uncontroversial information” about their fees in advertisements because the state rule was “reasonably related” to the government’s proffered interest in preventing consumer deception. Recently, in NIFLA v. Becerra, the Supreme Court explained that it did “not question the legality of health and safety warnings long considered permissible, or purely factual and uncontroversial disclosures about commercial products.” The disclosures at issue here fell squarely within those categories of disclosures.

We also argued that MSI’s interpretation of the First Amendment could threaten a vast array of commonplace disclosure laws used by all levels of government. These requirements, covering topics from pharmaceuticals to gambling to firearms, gave individuals necessary information to make choices regarding how best to protect themselves and their families. As such, they furthered the principal justification for extending First Amendment protection to commercial speech: “the value to consumers of the information such speech provides.” MSI’s interpretation of the First Amendment could place these and many more targeted requirements at risk.

In sum, Anne Arundel County’s requirement that sellers of guns and ammunitions provide literature to their customers regarding suicide prevention and nonviolent conflict resolution does not violate the First Amendment. Concluding otherwise would prevent lawmakers from empowering consumers to make fully-informed decisions that protect themselves and their families.

On January 23, 2024, the Fourth Circuit court issued its decision, ruling in favor of the county and affirming the lower court’s decision. The court concluded that the safety literature was “factual and uncontroversial” speech to which the Zauderer standard applies and thus that the County’s ordinance is constitutional under the First Amendment.

Case Timeline

  • July 14, 2023

    CAC files an amicus curiae brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

    Fourth Circuit Amicus Brief
  • December 8, 2023

    Fourth Circuit hears oral arguments

  • January 23, 2024

    The Fourth Circuit issues its decision

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
May 20, 2025

CAC Release: Attempts to Intimidate Public Officials Doing Their Jobs Should Concern All Americans

WASHINGTON, DC –  Upon press reports of the Trump Department of Justice’s decision to charge Congresswoman...
Rule of Law
May 16, 2025

CAC Release: At the D.C. Circuit, Everyone Agrees that the Constitution Does Not Permit the President to Unilaterally Shutter the CFPB

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District...
Rule of Law
May 16, 2025

CAC Release: Skepticism About Trump Administration’s Power Grab at Labor Rights Agencies at D.C. Circuit Argument This Morning

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District...
Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

J. Doe 4 v. Musk

In J. Doe 4 v. Musk, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland is considering whether Elon Musk’s role in DOGE violates the Appointments Clause and the Constitution’s separation of powers.
Rule of Law
May 9, 2025

Dodd-Frank Authors Join Warren, Waters to Challenge CFPB Firings

Bloomberg Law
Top Democrats, Dodd-Frank namesakes cite separation of powers Amicus brief highlights CFPB’s 2008 financial crisis...
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought

In National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is considering whether the Trump administration’s efforts to unilaterally shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are...