ST. THOMAS — A federal judge has denied the Virgin Islands government's motion to dismiss a second amendment lawsuit accusing the Virgin Islands Police Department of years of illegal gun licensing practices.
During a hearing on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Evan Rikhye ruled the case was not moot and said he will allow the U.S. Department of Justice to file an amended complaint to reflect developments in the case since it was first filed.
The lawsuit, filed in December 2025, accuses the Virgin Islands government, VIPD, and Police Commissioner Mario Brooks of a pattern of unconstitutional gun licensing practices. Among them, a requirement that applicants prove a "proper reason" for wanting a firearm before they could be licensed, mandatory warrantless home inspections, a requirement that applicants purchase and bolt down a gun safe, unexplained delays in processing applications, and restrictions on gun models and magazine capacities that the department imposed without any basis in law.
The complaint relies on a specific federal law, 34 U.S.C. § 12601, which makes it illegal for a police department to engage in a "pattern or practice" of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives people of their constitutional rights. It's the same law the federal government has historically used to investigate and enter consent decrees with local police departments over things like excessive force or discriminatory policing. It allows the U.S. DOJ to sue on behalf of the public generally, without needing an individual victim to bring the case.
The territory does not dispute historical constitutional violations. Instead, it has argued the practices in the complaint are moot as they were repealed and replaced by Act 9113 – legislation passed in June aimed at bringing the territory's firearms licensing rules into line with the Constitution.
Wednesday's proceedings began with Rikhye addressing certain issues he said had been a frustration to the court. These frustrations were directed to the VI government over its three procedural missteps in recent months, which Rikhye said could have been easily avoided.
These missteps include missing a deadline to respond to the U.S. DOJ's requests for admission. Under federal court rules, this means that VIPD was automatically deemed to have admitted to the unconstitutional practices at the heart of the case.
"These are not minor missteps," Rikhye said, adding that the ramifications of these missteps were far reaching as this was a constitutional issue impacting all the people of the Virgin Islands.
Assistant Attorney General Ariel Smith said she understood and appreciated the court's frustration and that none of the errors were intended to be disrespectful to the court.
"I'm also frustrated," Smith said, before adding that while some of the missteps were in her control, others were not.
Before starting oral arguments, Rikhye noted there were a number of issues at play, but said he wanted to keep the hearing narrowly on the Virgin Islands' motion to dismiss the case as moot.
In her oral arguments, Smith said in evaluating mootness, the court must consider the law as it stands, not what it was. Smith argued that Act 9113 gave the U.S. DOJ exactly what its lawsuit had asked for, the repeal of the unconstitutional licensing requirements, and that the case should be dismissed as a result.
But attorney Barry Arrington, acting chief of the Justice Department's Second Amendment Section, countered that Act 9113 does not address the core of their claim: that VIPD has engaged in an ongoing pattern or practice of violating gun owners' constitutional rights under § 12601, and that repealing one law doesn't guarantee the underlying pattern of conduct has stopped.
Smith responded that Act 9113 had only been in effect for about two months. This was not enough time, she argued, for any new pattern of noncompliance to emerge.
But the U.S. DOJ told the court it already has evidence that VIPD violated Act 9113 within those two months, and argued the burden falls on the territory to show the pattern will not continue.
Arrington told the court that legislation alone was not sufficient to rein in the behavior of a police department that has been "running amuck” for decades.
"The Virgin Islands Police Department does not respect the second amendment," Arrington said, adding that they had been a law unto themselves.
When Rikhye asked whether he agreed or disagreed that some of the issues had been addressed by Act 9113, Arrington said he didn’t know because the government would not provide information necessary to examine their claims. Arrington said the territory has not turned over documents they've requested, including historical gun license applications and records showing why applications were approved or denied.
"You can’t say a case is moot without providing proof," Arrington said.
Smith told the court the territory was not refusing to comply, rather that the lack of production was the result of resource issues. She said VIPD's Firearms Bureau was not digitized and has only three employees, making it difficult to produce four years of records.
Rikhye asked to move on from these arguments, saying he didn’t want to get bogged down in discovery issues during the hearing. But he did say the territory was required to turn over the records. He acknowledged the resource constraints Smith described and said the government would need to work with the court to figure out a method for turning over those documents.
Rikhye ultimately denied the motion to dismiss. He said Act 9113 "moved the needle in the right direction" but did not resolve what the U.S. DOJ is arguing regarding VIPD's broader pattern of conduct under § 12601. He also pointed to the fact that Act 9113 banned magazines over 15 rounds, while a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in July that bans on large-capacity magazines are unconstitutional.
He said these two developments since the original complaint was filed fundamentally changed the case, and that he would allow the U.S. DOJ to file an amended complaint to address them.
Rikhye also put a separate U.S. DOJ motion — asking the court to rule now that VIPD is already liable, based on the department's own admissions in the case — on hold. He suspended the territory's deadline to respond to that motion until after the amended complaint is filed and the territory has responded to it.
"Once we have those things, we will proceed from there," Rikhye said.
