MADISON, Wis. (CN) - The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to rule on a case after hearing oral arguments, where they called into question the legality of the case's foundation.   

Scot Van Oudenhoven was convicted in Calumet County of misdemeanor battery against the mother of his child in 1994. Under federal law, that crime is considered a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" and prevents Oudenhoven from owning a gun unless his conviction is expunged or set aside.  

In 2019, it was expunged. That is, all records held in the state related to his trial and conviction were hidden from public view. Each state has its own definition of expungement, and Wisconsin views it extremely narrowly. It does not necessarily return someone to their pre-conviction status in terms of civil rights, which is exactly the question brought before the court.

Later, Oudenhoven was blocked by the Wisconsin Department of Justice from purchasing a firearm. The department found that expungement did not vacate the effects of his conviction, and he still cannot own a gun, whether the record is publicly available or not.

The appeals court affirmed the department's finding, and Oudenhoven brought it to the state Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in February.

Despite accepting the case, allowing it to be briefed by the parties and hearing oral arguments on its merits, the Wisconsin Supreme Court dismissed the case on Tuesday "as improvidently granted." In other words, they erred in accepting the case in the first place and would not consider it further.

The majority did not explain its reasoning for dismissing the case, which is not out of the ordinary. However, Justice Rebecca Dallet and Justice Annette Ziegler each wrote separate opinions offering some insight into the high court's reasoning.

"Failing to provide an explanation for the dismissal results in a lack of guidance for litigants and the public and may effectively negate the 'numerous hours of work and sums of money spent seeking a decision on the merits,'" Dallet said in her brief concurring opinion. "The court's general practice, therefore, should be to provide an explanation for these dismissals."

Oudenhoven's expungement created a difficult hurdle for the justices at oral arguments, who struggled to look at the case at hand given the strange circumstances of the 2019 decision.

Several justices called its legality into question, suggesting that if the record of the domestic violence conviction was expunged in error, then the case at hand cannot be considered at all.

Ziegler attempted to steer the court back on track to consider whether there is a surplusage in the federal law that governs domestic violence and firearms, but the liberal justices on the bench continued to bring the conversation back to the facts of the expungement.  

"It's hard to say [whether the expungement was legal] because the records have been destroyed," petitioner attorney John Monroe told Courthouse News on Tuesday. "It's not obvious on its face what the basis for the expungement was, but at this point, it is several years old and beyond the scope."

The state explicitly affirmed at oral arguments that it would not question the legality of the expungement itself and was limiting its argument to the definition of expungement in the state statute.

In her dissent, Ziegler wrote that there is no reason at all to dismiss the case, given that the question at hand was briefed and argued.

Congress wrote four exceptions into the law preventing those convicted of domestic violence from owning, distributing or transporting a firearm - if the conviction has been expunged or set aside or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored.

The sticking point here is whether the Wisconsin expungement satisfies the exceptions in the federal law. Unless Oudenhoven takes his case to the U.S. Supreme Court - which his attorney says they are considering - Wisconsin may not have a clear answer.

"Answering the question properly raised in this case would develop the law on a question of statewide importance," Ziegler said in her dissenting opinion. "Neither this court nor the United States Supreme Court has authoritatively established what is required for a conviction to be expunged. Accordingly, there is no reason to dismiss this case as improvidently granted."

The Wisconsin Department of Justice declined to comment on the dismissal.

Source: Courthouse News Service