On June 25, 2015, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania struck down Act 192, which granted gun advocacy organizations standing to challenge municipal ordinances regulating the possession of firearms. The Act also required the payment of attorneys’ fees by municipalities to prevailing parties.

In Leach v. Commonwealth, the Commonwealth Court held that lawmakers did not follow constitutional procedure in passing the legislation, specifically due to their failure to comply with the Single Subject Requirement, enunciated in Article III, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the Original Purpose Requirement, enunciated in Article III, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Court found that the multiple subjects covered in Act 192 lacked a common nexus and that the legislative bill did not retain its original purpose as it moved through the enactment process.

For the time being, the Commonwealth is enjoined from enforcing any provisions of Act 192 or taking any actions in accordance with Act 192, per the Commonwealth Court’s decision in Leach. An appeal of the decision to the Supreme Court, however, is expected.

Ordinarily, a party seeking an order suspending an injunction of a lower court pending an appeal must first file an application with the lower court. Pa.R.A.P 1732. If, however, an appeal is taken by an officer of the Commonwealth, the appeal shall serve as an automatic, self-executing supersedeas of the Commonwealth Court’s decision. In other words, the decision of the Commonwealth Court would be automatically stayed pending an appeal to the Supreme Court by an officer of the Commonwealth. Pa.R.A.P 1736.

If and when an appeal is filed in the Supreme Court, the status of the appealing party will determine the effect, if any, an appeal will have on the Commonwealth’s Court decision in Leach.