The city said its elected representatives approved pursuing the court action. The announcement concerns a planned legal step, not a court decision: the available reporting did not identify a filing date, docket number or the specific relief the city would request in an eventual complaint.

City cites 402 line-item requests

Manchester said one unnamed nonresident submitted 402 line-item public-records requests. The city said that total includes 64 departmental requests submitted through 22 request forms since March 2023.

The city also said related requests and communications date to 2019. It characterized the activity as a pattern that burdens municipal operations and city employees.

That characterization is the city’s allegation and has not been adjudicated. The requester was not identified in the available report, and the announcement does not establish that the person violated the law.

Action remains at the planned-filing stage

Manchester has said it intends to ask a court for injunctive relief, but no injunction has been reported as granted. A complaint, if filed, would set out the city’s legal arguments and the remedy it seeks. Court review would occur only after such a filing.

No deadline for a filing was included in the approved reporting. Likewise, the available information does not state whether a court would limit, deny or otherwise address any future request activity.

Public-records framework remains in place

The dispute concerns access to municipal records under New Hampshire’s Right-to-Know Law, RSA 91-A. Manchester’s published Public Access to Records Policy describes the city’s procedures for handling governmental-records requests under that state-law framework.

In announcing the planned litigation, the city said it remains committed to transparency and compliance with lawful public-records requests. The proposed court action therefore does not replace the city’s stated public-records procedures; it is the city’s planned response to the request pattern it described.

The outcome could clarify the limits of a municipality’s response to high-volume Right-to-Know requests and could affect access to Manchester city records. For now, the confirmed development is the city’s approved intention to seek court intervention. The filing, the precise requested relief and any judicial ruling remain unknown.

What Virginia’s SB 749 is targeting (as DOJ describes it)

In DOJ’s framing, Virginia’s SB 749 targets transactions involving “assault firearms,” using a definition that DOJ says covers AR-15-style rifles. DOJ’s case focuses on whether Virginia can prohibit those purchase-and-sale activities as enforced through the state’s weapons-law system.

Important context: a complaint is one side’s legal claims. Virginia will respond through the normal court process.

Where the case is filed, and who is sued

The lawsuit is captioned United States of America v. the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Virginia Department of State Police and is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond Division). The complaint cover page lists the case number as 3:26-cv-00610.

What DOJ is asking the court to do

DOJ requests two categories of court relief:

• Declaratory relief—court declarations tied to DOJ’s constitutional and statutory arguments.
• Injunctive relief—a request for preliminary (early, during the case) and permanent injunctions to prevent enforcement of the challenged provisions.

Why readers should watch the next court order

The fastest real-world question is whether the judge grants DOJ’s request for temporary, preliminary relief. If the court grants an injunction, it could change what licensed sellers, buyers, and enforcement officials can do in the short term while the lawsuit continues.

After filing, the next development to look for is a signed order addressing the timeline for briefing and any hearing tied to the preliminary-injunction request.

Bottom line

This is a federal challenge aimed at stopping enforcement of Virginia’s newly enacted “assault firearm” purchase-and-sale ban while the case is litigated. The next procedural order—especially anything granting or denying preliminary injunctive relief—will likely determine what changes immediately for transactions covered by SB 749.

Sources

• DOJ Office of Public Affairs (July 1, 2026) — press release