Judge Denies DOJ Request to Limit Injunction on Post Office Carry Ban

In June, 2024 the Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation filed a lawsuit challenging the federal ban on firearms in U.S. postal facilities. U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled in favor of the plaintiffs last September, but the DOJ has tried to keep that ruling on hold while it appeals to the Fifth Circuit.

The appellate court denied the DOJ’s request back in January, but at that point the DOJ had also settled on a secondary strategy; asking O’Connor to limit the scope of the injunction so that it would only cover those who were FPC and SAF members at the time the lawsuit was filed. Since late October, the two sides have been filing back-and-forth briefs on the DOJ’s request, and today O’Connor handed down his decision.

FPC WIN: A Texas federal judge has DENIED the government’s motion to limit our win against the post office gun ban, ruling that the injunction applies “to all present and future members of Firearms Policy Coalition”: https://t.co/VPgtuUJ8Eq pic.twitter.com/CCVDt43LcQ

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) March 17, 2026

O’Connor’s decision covers present and future members of Second Amendment Foundation as well. From today’s order:

The Government asserts that the Court’s injunctive relief should be limited only to individuals who were members of Firearms Policy Coalition (“FPC”) and the Second Amendment Foundation (“SAF”) as of June 18, 2024—the date Plaintiffs filed their complaint—because FPC and SAF “did not have standing to represent and obtain relief for members who did not yet exist.”

The Government argues that to obtain relief for members who join after June 18, 2024, Plaintiffs should have sought class certification. Otherwise, the Government argues, nearly any organization could evade the Supreme Court’s prohibition of nationwide injunctions in Trump v.CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831, 861 (2025) by using associational standing as a “backdoor way” to grant universal injunctions.

But despite its arguments, the Government has not provided, and the Court has not found, a case limiting injunctive relief to only those members of an association at the time a lawsuit is filed. And while Plaintiffs could have sought class certification, they apparently also relied instead on associational standing—which the Government seemingly agrees they have in some form.

The DOJ’s attempt to limit the scope of the injunction has less to do with the 2A issues involved in the case and much more to do with its concern about nationwide injunctions in non-2A cases dealing with, say, immigration efforts. The DOJ can’t really argue that some broad injunctions are okay but others are not, so this is at least a consistent position on the part of the Trump administration.

Of course, there’s nothing requiring DOJ to continue to defend the carry ban in postal facilities either. The administration could simply drop its appeal and let O’Connor’s decision stand. It could also voluntarily rescind the ban of its own accord… and I’d argue that’s exactly what the Trump administration should do now.

So what are the real world implications here? It sounds to me like all current FPC and SAF members are covered by the injunction, which means that they should be allowed to carry in postal facilities (as customers, not as employees). I would suggest having something identifying you as a member if you do so, though, and be prepared to explain the contours of the lawsuit and Judge O’Connor’s decisions to those public-facing employees who have no idea that the injunction is in place.