The Price of Principle in MoCo’s Gun Lawsuits

Whatever one’s perspective on gun control, every resident of Montgomery County shares a common stake in how local tax dollars are managed. As county leaders prepare to defend newly enacted firearm restrictions in federal court, a critical question deserves attention: What will these legal battles cost taxpayers, and is this the best use of public resources at a time of mounting fiscal pressure?

In July, the Montgomery County Council passed Expedited Bill 23-26, legislation that, among other provisions, restricts the carrying of firearms in or within 100 yards of designated places of public assembly. County Executive Marc Elrich signed the bill on July 27. The legislation followed an April decision by the Supreme Court of Maryland addressing the county's previous firearms restrictions.

The new legislation almost immediately resulted in three separate federal challenges: Barreto v. Montgomery County, brought by Maryland firearm-permit holders; Silver Spring Jewish Center v. Montgomery County, brought by a local Jewish congregation and its rabbi; and United States v. Montgomery County, brought by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Defending three simultaneous federal lawsuits is a very expensive undertaking. Well-paid county attorneys must spend hundreds of hours researching constitutional questions, preparing pleadings and motions, participating in discovery, attending hearings, and potentially defending the ordinance through multiple levels of appellate review. Outside constitutional counsel, experts, and other litigation specialists can increase costs substantially.

Beyond those immediate costs, the county's potential financial exposure is enormous. Under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, a plaintiff who becomes a prevailing party on qualifying federal civil-rights claims can seek an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs. That means a successful challenge could leave Montgomery County responsible not only for its own defense, but potentially for substantial legal expenses incurred by prevailing plaintiffs. This isn't theoretical. It just happened.

Montgomery County has just finished defending its previous firearms regulations in Engage Armament, LLC, et al. v. Montgomery County. The case reached the Supreme Court of Maryland, which upheld some provisions while concluding that others exceeded the county's authority or were preempted by state law. The Supreme Court's decision required further proceedings concerning the relief to be entered and assessed two-thirds of the appellate costs against Montgomery County. A spokesperson for the plaintiff predicted attorney’s fees could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Governments have a responsibility to defend laws they believe are lawful and in the public interest. But defending a law is not free, and taxpayers deserve full disclosure to decide if the lemonade is worth the squeeze. That's especially important in today's Montgomery County, where a few million dollars can make or break essential services.

Just weeks before the new firearms lawsuits were filed, Montgomery County Public Schools was confronting a $36 million funding gap. Among the cuts was $1,724,664 for 28 additional elementary-school Security Assistant positions. Of course, money spent defending a county ordinance cannot simply be transferred to MCPS. Nonetheless, taxpayers are entitled to consider the opportunity cost. Which is more likely to prevent gun violence: 28 security personnel deployed across elementary schools or Expedited Bill 23-26?

Before Montgomery County commits itself to three more years-long legal battles costing millions of dollars, taxpayers deserve to know precisely what the previous battle cost, what the new suits could cost, and why county officials believe the expected public-safety benefits justify the financial risk. Unfortunately, county leaders appear to be rushing headlong into battle on multiple fronts without having answered those questions for themselves.

“We’re just not going to surrender,” County Executive Marc Elrich said at a press conference last week. He added, “If we get to a legal point and we lose in court, we lose in court… Nobody likes spending money unnecessarily, but we’re not going to know whether it’s unnecessary until we play this out in court.”

Principle matters. But so does the price of principle.