The circumstances surrounding Bianchi’s decision have added another layer of intrigue, CNN noted.
His attorneys said in a court filing that they received a voicemail from someone identifying himself as Bianchi on Oct. 28 requesting that he be removed from the lawsuit.
The lawyers said they subsequently confirmed that the telephone number belonged to their client.
They nevertheless told the Supreme Court they had been unable to speak directly with Bianchi about his request despite repeated attempts to reach him.
The attorneys said they did not know why Bianchi suddenly wanted out of litigation that has continued for years.
They also emphasized that Bianchi’s withdrawal should not prevent the Supreme Court from deciding the case.
Maryland disagrees, arguing that the unusual circumstances warrant additional scrutiny before the justices proceed with arguments on one of the term’s most significant Second Amendment disputes.
The case began after Maryland enacted its Firearm Safety Act following the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
The law prohibits possession, sale, transfer and purchase of dozens of specified semiautomatic firearms, including versions of the AR-15.
Challengers contend the prohibition violates the Second Amendment because AR-15-style rifles are commonly possessed by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes.
Maryland argues the weapons are unusually dangerous and sufficiently similar to military firearms that states may constitutionally restrict them.
The legal fight has become increasingly significant following the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
In Bruen, the court ruled that modern firearms regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Gun-rights advocates argue Maryland cannot identify a sufficiently analogous historical tradition supporting its ban.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals nevertheless upheld Maryland’s law.
The appeals court concluded that AR-15-style rifles fall outside Second Amendment protection because they are sufficiently similar to military weapons such as the M16.
The Supreme Court previously declined to immediately review the dispute while it was still moving through the lower courts.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh signaled at the time that the issue was likely to return.
“In my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next Term or two,” Kavanaugh wrote.
The justices subsequently agreed to hear the case in June.
The court’s conservative majority has expanded Second Amendment protections in several major decisions, including District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. Chicago and Bruen.
The Maryland case could determine how those precedents apply to bans covering one of the country’s most widely owned categories of semiautomatic rifles.
Several states have enacted comparable restrictions, meaning a broad Supreme Court ruling could affect laws well beyond Maryland.
The immediate question, however, is whether the justices will reach the constitutional issue at all.
Maryland argues the unexplained departure of the named plaintiff creates procedural problems serious enough to warrant dismissal.
The remaining challengers, however, contend there are still individuals and organizations with standing whose constitutional claims remain fully alive.
