Back in January, District Attorney Rob Greene and the Second Amendment Foundation took federal officials to court over his inability to possess firearms while holding a medical marijuana card.

Both sides have made their case.

And a request for a preliminary injunction – which would stop the enforcement action by the federal government while the litigation plays out – remains pending with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, online court records show.

Attorney General Merrick Garland, the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were named in the initial suit.

Each agency named in the suit has a role in overseeing and administering the sale of firearms.

Greene’s suit claims that the three men “have prohibited a particular class of persons, including Plaintiff Greene and the foundation’s similarly situated members, from acquiring, keeping, possessing, and utilizing firearms and ammunition, in direct violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

The filing cites the most recent Second Amendment ruling by the Supreme Court, Bruen, “requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.”

The suit seeks a ruling that finds that the laws that prohibit Greene’s firearms rights are a violation of Second Amendment protections as well as temporary – and eventually, permanent – injunctions against enforcement of those laws.

The government’s response was filed on April 1.

“Marijuana’s physical and mental effects make it dangerous for a person to handle firearms and also impair a person’s judgment, including judgment about whether to use firearms,” that response explained. “In addition, possession of marijuana (even under a state medical marijuana program) is a federal crime. It was within Congress’s authority to determine that people who are actively engaged in committing a crime that renders them unable to handle firearms safely are too dangerous to possess or receive firearms.”

The response outlines how the firearm rights of the plaintiff’s can be restored.

“Plaintiffs are not prevented from possessing firearms but merely must choose between firearms possession and unlawful drug use, and no plaintiff has submitted evidence of an immediate medical need to use marijuana,” the government states.

“Critically, although plaintiffs focus much of their argument on marijuana, and particularly state-regulated medical marijuana, they raise a facial challenge to the challenged provisions, and they seek an injunction that would prevent the government from enforcing the challenged provisions based on unlawful use of any controlled substance, including cocaine, heroin, fentanyl, or methamphetamines,” their argument states.

“The contention that a person has not previously engaged in violent or criminal behavior (other than marijuana possession in violation of federal law) does not change the fact that marijuana use causes significant impairments that both render it unsafe to use a firearm and impair a person’s judgment. People who regularly use a substance that impairs the ability to think, judge, and reason ‘are analogous to other groups the government has historically found too dangerous to have guns.'”

“The Government lists a series of district court decisions in a footnote for support that this Court should reject Plaintiffs’ challenge,” a response from the Foundation states. “While it may appear to be impressive, there is certainly no wisdom in crowds when it comes to Second Amendment challenges.”

The foundation asserts that “lower courts through this country consistently applied the wrong test to Second Amendment challenges, despite clear instructions from the Supreme Court in Heller regarding the application of a test of text as informed by this nation’s history and tradition.

“Finally, grasping at straws, the Government seeks to hang its hat on laws disarming those deemed dangerous to save the challenge(d) prohibition. To the extent Defendants continue down the path of ‘unlawfulness,’ their remaining examples are uncompelling. “Unlawful drug users often ‘commit crime in order to obtain money to buy drugs’ and ‘violent crime may occur as part of the drug business or culture’.”

“References to unlawful drug dealing are far afield from the state of affairs with Plaintiff Greene and others who lawfully hold MMID cards.”

A hearing has been set for May 6 but was canceled in the wake of a stipulation that was filed on April 29.

In the most recent filing, dated April 29, U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon states that the “Court is taking Plaintff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction under advisement.”

No order on that issue had been entered as of Monday.

Greene announced in late December that he wouldn’t be seeking a fourth term in office and would instead shift his focus to advocacy on the issue of marijuana.

Greene was first elected to the top law enforcement role in 2013 and his current term runs through December 2025.