Zoe Tillman of the National Law Journal reports that a federal appeals court today ruled that a New York federal judge should never have been assigned to a Washington, D.C., gun case, vacating his order that struck down certain District gun regulations as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge Frederick Scullin Jr. handled the Palmer v. District of Columbia case, which challenged an earlier set of local gun laws that banned the public carrying of firearms. Scullin ruled the law unconstitutional. When Scullin was automatically assigned to a related case, challenging the requirement that individuals in the District show a “good reason” or “proper reason” for having the gun before they could get a license, the D.C. Office of the Attorney General argued that Scullin shouldn’t have heard the case and vacated his decision.

The case will go back to the district court for assignment to a new judge, Tillman reports.

WTOP reports that today’s ruling is just the latest in the District of Columbia’s long history of wrangling over gun rights:

A 2008 Supreme Court ruling struck down the city’s longstanding ban on handguns, and the city rewrote its gun law in response, allowing people to have handguns for self-defense in the home but not to carry them in public.

Residents and others sued over the new law. Scullin struck down the city’s ban on carrying handguns outside the home in 2014, and the city again rewrote its laws, allowing residents to carry guns but only if they have the required “good reason.”