Erica Bojicic v. Richard Michael DeWine

Plain English (For Everyone)

Imagine a situation where someone is considered a danger to themselves or others, and the state temporarily takes away their guns. This court case says that Ohio's law allowing this is constitutional. It's like a temporary safety measure, and the court found it doesn't violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms or due process rights, as long as there's a chance to be heard.

For Legal Practitioners

The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a Second Amendment challenge to Ohio's red flag law, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. The court distinguished the temporary firearm deprivation from a permanent ban, deeming it a reasonable measure that does not violate the Second Amendment. Furthermore, the court found the law's notice and hearing provisions satisfied due process requirements, reinforcing the constitutionality of such ex parte temporary seizure mechanisms when followed by prompt judicial review.

For Law Students

This case tests the constitutionality of state "red flag" laws under the Second Amendment and Due Process Clause. The Sixth Circuit held that Ohio's law, which allows for temporary firearm confiscation upon a showing of danger, does not violate the Second Amendment because the deprivation is temporary and subject to judicial review. The court also found adequate due process protections were afforded, aligning with precedent that temporary seizures for public safety can be permissible if procedural safeguards are in place.

Newsroom Summary

A federal appeals court has upheld Ohio's "red flag" law, allowing temporary confiscation of firearms from individuals deemed a danger. The ruling affirms that such measures, when accompanied by due process, do not violate Second Amendment rights, impacting individuals facing potential firearm restrictions and the broader debate on gun control.

Procedural Posture

Erica Bojicic sued Richard Michael DeWine, the Governor of Ohio, alleging that Ohio's ban on the sale of certain firearms violated her Second Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Governor DeWine, finding that the ban was constitutional. Bojicic appealed this decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Constitutional Issues

Second Amendment (right to keep and bear arms)

Rule Statements

The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Laws that burden the Second Amendment right are subject to intermediate scrutiny.

Scenario: Your family member or roommate is exhibiting dangerous behavior, expressing suicidal thoughts, or making threats of violence towards others, and you are concerned about their access to firearms.

Your Rights: You have the right to petition a court for a temporary order to remove firearms from that person if there is evidence they pose a significant risk to themselves or others. The law requires that the person subject to the order be given notice and an opportunity to be heard by the court.

What To Do: Contact your local law enforcement or the relevant court in Ohio to inquire about the process for filing an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO), often referred to as a "red flag" petition. Be prepared to provide specific details and evidence of the danger posed.

Is it legal for the police to temporarily take away my guns if a court believes I'm a danger to myself or others?

It depends, but under Ohio's "red flag" law, it can be legal. This ruling means that if a court finds sufficient evidence that you pose a significant risk, it can issue an order for your firearms to be temporarily removed. However, the law requires that you be given notice and a chance to argue against the order in court.

This specific ruling applies to the Sixth Circuit, which includes Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee. Similar laws and legal challenges exist in other states, with varying outcomes.

For Individuals facing potential "red flag" orders

This ruling reinforces that temporary firearm confiscation under Ohio's red flag law is constitutionally permissible. Individuals subject to such orders must be aware of their due process rights, including notice and the opportunity for a hearing, to challenge the order effectively.

For Law enforcement and courts in Ohio

The decision provides legal backing for the implementation and enforcement of Ohio's red flag law. It clarifies that the temporary deprivation of firearms, when conducted with proper procedural safeguards, aligns with constitutional requirements, potentially encouraging more widespread use of such orders in cases of demonstrated risk.

Q: What is Erica Bojicic v. Richard Michael DeWine about?

Erica Bojicic v. Richard Michael DeWine is a case decided by Sixth Circuit on July 30, 2025.

Q: What court decided Erica Bojicic v. Richard Michael DeWine?

Erica Bojicic v. Richard Michael DeWine was decided by the Sixth Circuit, which is part of the federal judiciary. This is a federal appellate court.

Q: When was Erica Bojicic v. Richard Michael DeWine decided?

Erica Bojicic v. Richard Michael DeWine was decided on July 30, 2025.

Q: What is the citation for Erica Bojicic v. Richard Michael DeWine?

The citation for Erica Bojicic v. Richard Michael DeWine is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What is the case name and what was the main issue in Erica Bojicic v. Richard Michael DeWine?

The case is Erica Bojicic v. Richard Michael DeWine, decided by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The central issue was whether Ohio's "red flag" law, which permits the temporary confiscation of firearms from individuals deemed a danger, violated the Second Amendment and due process rights.

Q: Who were the parties involved in the lawsuit?

The plaintiff was Erica Bojicic, who challenged Ohio's red flag law. The defendant was Richard Michael DeWine, the Governor of Ohio, representing the state's interest in upholding the law.

Q: Which court decided the case Erica Bojicic v. Richard Michael DeWine?

The case was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which affirmed the district court's decision.

Q: When was the Sixth Circuit's decision in Erica Bojicic v. Richard Michael DeWine issued?

The Sixth Circuit issued its decision in Erica Bojicic v. Richard DeWine on January 19, 2024. This affirmed the district court's earlier dismissal of the lawsuit.

Q: What is Ohio's "red flag" law and what does it allow?

Ohio's "red flag" law, also known as the Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) law, allows courts to temporarily confiscate firearms from individuals who are determined by a judge to pose a significant risk of harm to themselves or others. This is typically initiated by law enforcement or family members.

Q: Is Erica Bojicic v. Richard Michael DeWine published?

Erica Bojicic v. Richard Michael DeWine is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What was the ruling in Erica Bojicic v. Richard Michael DeWine?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Erica Bojicic v. Richard Michael DeWine. Key holdings: The Sixth Circuit held that Ohio's "red flag" law, which permits the temporary confiscation of firearms from individuals deemed a danger, does not violate the Second Amendment because the temporary deprivation of firearms is not a complete prohibition on gun ownership and is a constitutionally permissible means of ensuring public safety.; The court found that the "red flag" law provides sufficient due process protections, including notice and an opportunity to be heard, before a person's firearms can be temporarily removed, thus satisfying constitutional requirements.; The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the law was unconstitutionally vague, finding that the criteria for determining a danger to self or others were sufficiently clear.; The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to deny the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, as she failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of her constitutional claims.; The court determined that the "red flag" law serves a significant governmental interest in preventing gun violence and suicide, and the temporary measures employed are substantially related to achieving that interest..

Q: Why is Erica Bojicic v. Richard Michael DeWine important?

Erica Bojicic v. Richard Michael DeWine has an impact score of 65/100, indicating significant legal impact. This decision provides significant support for the constitutionality of "red flag" laws, which are increasingly adopted by states seeking to address gun violence. It signals that courts are likely to uphold such laws as long as they incorporate robust due process protections and are narrowly tailored to serve public safety interests.

Q: What precedent does Erica Bojicic v. Richard Michael DeWine set?

Erica Bojicic v. Richard Michael DeWine established the following key holdings: (1) The Sixth Circuit held that Ohio's "red flag" law, which permits the temporary confiscation of firearms from individuals deemed a danger, does not violate the Second Amendment because the temporary deprivation of firearms is not a complete prohibition on gun ownership and is a constitutionally permissible means of ensuring public safety. (2) The court found that the "red flag" law provides sufficient due process protections, including notice and an opportunity to be heard, before a person's firearms can be temporarily removed, thus satisfying constitutional requirements. (3) The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the law was unconstitutionally vague, finding that the criteria for determining a danger to self or others were sufficiently clear. (4) The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to deny the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, as she failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of her constitutional claims. (5) The court determined that the "red flag" law serves a significant governmental interest in preventing gun violence and suicide, and the temporary measures employed are substantially related to achieving that interest.

Q: What are the key holdings in Erica Bojicic v. Richard Michael DeWine?

1. The Sixth Circuit held that Ohio's "red flag" law, which permits the temporary confiscation of firearms from individuals deemed a danger, does not violate the Second Amendment because the temporary deprivation of firearms is not a complete prohibition on gun ownership and is a constitutionally permissible means of ensuring public safety. 2. The court found that the "red flag" law provides sufficient due process protections, including notice and an opportunity to be heard, before a person's firearms can be temporarily removed, thus satisfying constitutional requirements. 3. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the law was unconstitutionally vague, finding that the criteria for determining a danger to self or others were sufficiently clear. 4. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to deny the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, as she failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of her constitutional claims. 5. The court determined that the "red flag" law serves a significant governmental interest in preventing gun violence and suicide, and the temporary measures employed are substantially related to achieving that interest.

Q: What cases are related to Erica Bojicic v. Richard Michael DeWine?

Precedent cases cited or related to Erica Bojicic v. Richard Michael DeWine: District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008); McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010); Timbs v. Indiana, 139 S. Ct. 682 (2019).

Q: What was Erica Bojicic's primary legal argument against Ohio's red flag law?

Erica Bojicic's primary legal argument was that Ohio's red flag law violated her Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. She contended that the temporary deprivation of her firearms under the law was unconstitutional.

Q: Did the Sixth Circuit find that Ohio's red flag law violates the Second Amendment?

No, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that Ohio's red flag law does not violate the Second Amendment. The court concluded that Erica Bojicic failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of her Second Amendment claim.

Q: What legal test did the Sixth Circuit apply to the Second Amendment claim?

The Sixth Circuit applied a standard that requires the plaintiff to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claim to obtain preliminary injunctive relief. The court found Bojicic did not meet this burden regarding her Second Amendment challenge.

Q: How did the court analyze the temporary nature of the firearm deprivation under the red flag law?

The court analyzed the temporary nature of the firearm deprivation by considering it a permissible regulation that does not permanently dispossess individuals of their firearms. The temporary nature was a key factor in the court's conclusion that it did not violate constitutional rights.

Q: What due process arguments did Erica Bojicic raise, and how did the court address them?

Erica Bojicic raised due process claims, arguing the law lacked adequate notice and opportunity to be heard. The Sixth Circuit rejected these claims, finding that Ohio's red flag law provides sufficient notice and a meaningful opportunity for individuals to contest the order and seek the return of their firearms.

Q: What is the standard of review for a preliminary injunction, and how did it apply here?

The standard of review for a preliminary injunction is typically abuse of discretion. The Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion, finding that the district court correctly applied the legal standards and did not err in its decision.

Q: Did the court consider historical interpretations of the Second Amendment in its ruling?

While the opinion focuses on the immediate constitutional claims, the analysis of Second Amendment rights often implicitly considers historical context. However, the Sixth Circuit's primary reasoning centered on the temporary nature of the deprivation and the procedural safeguards, rather than a deep dive into historical analogues for red flag laws.

Q: What does it mean for the plaintiff to "fail to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits"?

This means that, based on the legal arguments and evidence presented at the preliminary injunction stage, the plaintiff did not convince the court that they would ultimately win their case if it proceeded to a full trial. The court found Bojicic's arguments insufficient to meet this high bar.

Q: How does Erica Bojicic v. Richard Michael DeWine affect me?

This decision provides significant support for the constitutionality of "red flag" laws, which are increasingly adopted by states seeking to address gun violence. It signals that courts are likely to uphold such laws as long as they incorporate robust due process protections and are narrowly tailored to serve public safety interests. As a decision from a federal appellate court, its reach is national. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.

Q: What is the practical impact of the Sixth Circuit's decision on Ohio's red flag law?

The practical impact is that Ohio's red flag law remains in effect and can continue to be utilized by law enforcement and courts to temporarily remove firearms from individuals deemed a danger. The ruling provides legal validation for the law's continued enforcement.

Q: Who is most affected by this ruling and the red flag law?

Individuals who are deemed a danger to themselves or others by a court, and their families or associates who may seek such an order, are most directly affected. The ruling impacts the ability of law enforcement and courts to implement temporary firearm restrictions in specific situations.

Q: Does this ruling mean red flag laws are constitutional everywhere?

This ruling specifically applies to Ohio's red flag law within the Sixth Circuit's jurisdiction (Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee). While it provides persuasive authority, other circuits may interpret similar laws differently, and constitutional challenges can still arise in other states.

Q: What are the implications for gun owners in Ohio following this decision?

For law-abiding gun owners in Ohio, the ruling signifies that the state's existing red flag law is currently upheld. Individuals subject to a red flag order should be aware of the legal process and their rights to contest it.

Q: What are the compliance implications for law enforcement and courts in Ohio?

Law enforcement and courts in Ohio can continue to operate under the existing framework of the red flag law. The ruling reinforces the procedures they must follow, including providing notice and an opportunity to be heard, to ensure compliance with due process.

Q: How does this case fit into the broader legal landscape of Second Amendment challenges?

This case is part of a wave of legal challenges to gun control measures following the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. The Sixth Circuit's decision reflects how lower courts are applying the Bruen framework to specific state laws.

Q: What legal precedents might have influenced the Sixth Circuit's decision?

The Sixth Circuit's decision likely considered precedents related to the Second Amendment, including the Supreme Court's rulings in Heller and Bruen, as well as established principles of due process. The court also likely reviewed prior cases addressing the constitutionality of similar firearm restrictions.

Q: Are there other states with similar red flag laws, and how might this ruling affect them?

Yes, many states have enacted red flag laws. While this ruling is specific to the Sixth Circuit, it may influence how courts in other jurisdictions analyze similar statutes, particularly if those laws share comparable procedural safeguards and scope.

Q: What was the docket number in Erica Bojicic v. Richard Michael DeWine?

The docket number for Erica Bojicic v. Richard Michael DeWine is 24-3537. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can Erica Bojicic v. Richard Michael DeWine be appealed?

Potentially — decisions from federal appellate courts can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States via a petition for certiorari, though the Court accepts very few cases.

Q: How did Erica Bojicic's case reach the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals?

Erica Bojicic's case reached the Sixth Circuit on appeal after the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed her lawsuit challenging Ohio's red flag law. She sought a preliminary injunction, which was denied by the district court, leading to her appeal.

Q: What was the procedural posture of the case when it reached the Sixth Circuit?

The procedural posture was an appeal from the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction and dismissal of the lawsuit. Bojicic was seeking to prevent the enforcement of Ohio's red flag law while her constitutional claims were litigated.

Q: Did the Sixth Circuit rule on the merits of the case or on a procedural issue?

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, which had dismissed the lawsuit and denied a preliminary injunction. While the court discussed the merits of the Second Amendment and due process claims in the context of the injunction standard, its ultimate ruling was procedural in affirming the lower court's dismissal.

Q: What happens next for Erica Bojicic after the Sixth Circuit's decision?

Following the Sixth Circuit's affirmation of the dismissal, Erica Bojicic could potentially seek further review from the U.S. Supreme Court. Alternatively, if her case was dismissed without prejudice on certain claims, she might be able to refile with amendments, though the core constitutional challenges were addressed.