What is the current status of Measure 114 in the Oregon Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit?
Executive summary
Measure 114 is currently active in parallel state- and federal-court tracks: at the state level the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed a lower court and lifted a hold in March 2025 and the Oregon Supreme Court has accepted review of the appeal (with arguments set later in 2025), while at the federal level the law was upheld by a U.S. district judge but the appeal to the Ninth Circuit remains pending and has been affected by related litigation in other circuits [1] [2] [3].
1. Oregon Supreme Court — case accepted after Court of Appeals reversal
After Harney County Circuit Judge Robert Raschio struck down Measure 114, a three‑judge panel on the Oregon Court of Appeals unanimously held the law “facially valid” and reversed the lower‑court ruling, lifting the state-court hold in March 2025 [1] [4]. That reversal gave plaintiffs the statutory period to seek review from the Oregon Supreme Court, and the state high court agreed to take up the appeal, scheduling oral arguments later in 2025 — a step that placed the ultimate fate of the voter‑approved measure squarely with the state’s highest tribunal [2] [4]. Meanwhile the legislature and state agencies have paused full implementation and the permitting system has been left in limbo while the state and stakeholders await the Supreme Court’s decision [2] [5].
2. Ninth Circuit — federal appeal alive but stalled and intertwined with other cases
On the federal side, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut ruled that Measure 114 is constitutional, finding the Second Amendment does not protect large‑capacity magazines and that the permit system fits into established constitutional allowances [3]. That federal ruling was appealed to the Ninth Circuit, but the federal proceeding has been held in the shadow of other magazine‑ban cases and appeals in the Ninth and beyond; reporting indicates the Ninth Circuit’s handling of the Oregon appeal has been slow and in some respects stayed while related national litigation proceeds [2] [6]. Public reports and advocacy materials characterize the federal appeal as “gathering dust” or paused pending outcomes in other circuits, but the Ninth Circuit docket remains the operative venue for that constitutional challenge absent Supreme Court action [2] [7].
3. What “lifted hold” and court actions mean in practice
When the Oregon Court of Appeals lifted the lower‑court injunction it meant the appellate court found no facial infirmity under the state constitution and formally removed the circuit judge’s block, creating the usual window for a state‑supreme‑court appeal by the plaintiffs [1]. Practically, however, Oregon lawmakers and agencies have used legislative fixes and administrative pauses to delay rolling out the permitting infrastructure — a pragmatic pause that keeps enforcement off the books until litigation settles or implementation deadlines established by the legislature take effect [4] [5]. That creates a situation where a court says the law is valid but administrative and political actors slow activation pending final resolution.
4. Competing narratives and the stakes
Supporters frame the appellate victory as vindication of voter intent and a green light to finish implementing “common sense” safety measures, while opponents—ranging from county governments to gun‑rights groups—argue the law burdens traditional gun rights and impose logistical strains on local law enforcement if enforced [8] [4]. National groups such as the NRA and Gun Owners of America have continued to press federal claims and publicize potential routes to the U.S. Supreme Court, underscoring that even with favorable rulings in district and appellate state courts, Measure 114 remains politically charged and legally unsettled [1] [7].
5. What is unresolved and what to watch next
The immediate, answerable status is that the Oregon Supreme Court has accepted review of the Court of Appeals’ reversal and the Ninth Circuit appeal of the federal ruling remains pending; both tracks could yield further stays, remands, or final judgments that determine enforcement timing [1] [2] [3]. What remains outside the provided reporting is the exact timing of the Oregon Supreme Court’s final decision and any Ninth Circuit scheduling after related litigation resolves — both of which will determine whether implementation proceeds, whether the legislature’s March 2026 pause holds, and whether the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately becomes involved [2] [4] [7].