Jump to content

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Leoesb1032 (talk | contribs) at 16:16, 11 August 2022 (→‎Opinion of the Court: The Court did not use strict scrutiny. The majority expressly acknowledged that it was adopting the "text, history and tradition" test made popular by then-Judge Kavanaugh's dissent in Heller II.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 3, 2021
Decided June 23, 2022
Full case nameNew York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. v. Kevin P. Bruen, in His Official Capacity as Superintendent of New York State Police, et al.
Docket no.20-843
Citations597 U.S. ___ (more)
142 S.Ct. 2111
2022 WL 2251305
2022 U.S. LEXIS 3055
ArgumentOral argument
DecisionOpinion
Case history
Prior
  • N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Beach, No. 1:18-cv-00134-BKS-ATB, granting motion to dismiss (N.D.N.Y. 2018)
  • N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Beach, No. 19-00156, affirmed (2d Cir. 2020)
Holding
The Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home; New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan · Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh · Amy Coney Barrett
Case opinions
MajorityThomas, joined by Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
ConcurrenceAlito
ConcurrenceKavanaugh, joined by Roberts
ConcurrenceBarrett
DissentBreyer, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. II, XIV

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), abbreviated NYSRPA v. Bruen and also known as NYSRPA II or Bruen to distinguish it from the 2020 case, is a landmark decision[1][2] of the United States Supreme Court related to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case concerned the constitutionality of the 1911 Sullivan Act, a New York State law requiring applicants for an unrestricted license to carry a concealed pistol on their person to show "proper cause", or a special need distinguishable from the general public, in their application.

In a 6–3 decision, the majority ruled that New York's law was unconstitutional, and effectively ruled that the possession of pistols in public was a constitutional right under the Second Amendment. State licensing of firearms was not declared an infringement on that right as long as states stay within the much more common "shall-issue" systems, which may only condition licenses upon satisfying objective criteria, such as passing a background check rather than "may-issue" systems, which may be based on "arbitrary" evaluations of need made by local authorities.[3]

Background

See also: Gun politics in the United States

Prior Second Amendment case law

The issue around the right to carry guns in public in the United States has been a contested area in politics and constitutional law for most of the 20th and, so far, the 21st century. Prior to the case, the Supreme Court established two major decisions toward gun possession in one's home: District of Columbia v. Heller[4] affirmed that U.S. citizens did have an individual right, unconnected to a "well-regulated militia", to possess guns within their own homes under the Second Amendment, and McDonald v. City of Chicago[5] affirmed this was a right that was incorporated against the states. However, the question of ownership outside of one's home had not yet reached the Supreme Court, and instead was based on an inconsistent framework of state laws and federal court decisions. These decisions were generally rested on long-standing common law that the government does have the ability to regulate firearms in public spaces to uphold state regulations on public gun possession.[6] Across over one thousand cases since Heller, most federal appeals courts have used intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny to judge the validity of public-carry gun control laws which defer to the states' compelling interest to protect the public by restricting possession of guns in public spaces.[7][8]

Since Heller and McDonald, the Supreme Court had been pressed by gun-rights advocates like the National Rifle Association to further review Second Amendment rights related to public possession of guns, but the Court had passed on numerous cases that were presented.[8] The case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York,[9] which dealt with possession of guns outside of ones' home, had been heard by the Supreme Court in 2019, but due to changes in the underlying law, the case was rendered moot.[6]

Case background

To combat growing criminal violence in ethnic neighborhoods of New York City, including the assassination attempt on New York City mayor William J. Gaynor and the murder of author David Graham Phillips, Timothy Sullivan led the state legislature to enact the Sullivan Act in 1911.[10][11][12] It made the possession of a handgun a crime without a permit, and instituted issuance of concealed carry permits at the discretion of local law enforcement. The law states that to obtain a permit, the applicant must "demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession".[7] The state had clarified that this must be a non-speculative need for self-defense as to establish a proper cause to grant a permit.[13] The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, along with Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, who failed to obtain a permit in New York state, challenged that law, seeking to make the issue of permits no longer discretionary.[6][14] Nash, for example, sought a permit for a handgun after a string of robberies in his neighborhood but was denied as he could not prove a need for self-defense.[14] The plaintiffs argued that the law and judgements against their permits were flawed; "Good, even impeccable, moral character plus a simple desire to exercise a fundamental right is, according to these courts, not sufficient. Nor is living or being employed in a 'high crime area.'"[13] The Sullivan Act is considered the first may-issue public carry law in the United States, since the discretion on allowing a person to carry a gun in public is based on the evaluation of need, which seven other states adopted from New York. This is contrast to more recent "shall-issue" licensing requirements based on determinant methods such as using background checks and aptitude checks to determine eligibility.[6][11]

Lower courts

The case, filed against then-Superintendent George P. Beach II of the New York State Police and Justice Richard J. McNally of the New York Supreme Court, was initially dismissed at the Northern District of New York in 2018. The plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal by the District Court in August 2020. Beach was replaced by Keith M. Corlett in 2019; Corlett was replaced by Kevin P. Bruen in 2021, and Bruen was subsequently named as the defendant and respondent in the suit.

Supreme Court

The petitioners had asked the Supreme Court to review their case, specifically pressing the question of "whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense".[7] The Supreme Court granted certiorari on April 26, 2021, though it limited the case to the question of "whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment".[6][7] The case was heard on November 3, 2021.[7][15] The petitioners were represented by Paul Clement, who served as solicitor general during the administration of George W. Bush and argued as amicus curiae on behalf of the United States in Heller, and on behalf of the National Rifle Association in support of the petitioners in McDonald.[14] The respondents were represented by New York State Solicitor General Barbara Underwood, who served in the Solicitor General's Office during the administration of Bill Clinton and temporarily served as acting Solicitor General of the United States between the transition from Clinton to Bush.[16]

The case was the first major gun-rights case that the Supreme Court had heard in more than a decade, outside of the moot New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York.[6] It was also the first gun-rights case to be heard by the six-member conservative majority, which included Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, who in prior opinions had emphasized the need for the Supreme Court to review the current stance on Second Amendment cases.[6] Justice Amy Coney Barrett had also expressed support for a Second Amendment review prior to her appointment to the Supreme Court.[7] Because of the shift toward a more-conservative membership, some court analysts believed that the Court might interpret the Second Amendment more liberally in favor of individual rights over states' powers, which could render many existing public-possession regulations unconstitutional.[6][7] However, as discussed by Vox's Ian Millhiser, the limited question that the Court granted may restrict the issue to concealed-carry licenses and not the matter of any and all public possession.[7]

Amicus briefs

More than eighty amici curiae for this case were filed.[17]

Discrimination and marginalized groups

Organizations representing American minority groups submitted amicus briefs in support of striking down much of the Sullivan Act as unconstitutional.[18] The Bronx Defenders, Brooklyn Defenders Services, and Black Attorneys of Legal Aid opined that the Second Amendment is a "legal fiction" in New York when it comes to people of color.[18] According to these public defender and legal aid organizations, some 96% of those arrested for illegal gun possession in New York during 2020 were either Black or Latino.[18] The disparate racial impact of the Sullivan Act and other discretionary New York state gun control regulations is "no accident" according to their brief provided to the Court.[18] Black Guns Matter, A Girl & A Gun Women's Shooting League, and Armed Equality, an LGBT self-defense group, voiced a similar opinion to the Court in their own amicus brief, calling may-issue "deeply discriminatory".[18]

Weakness of "proper cause"

Twenty-six state attorneys general argued that the subjective nature of the proper-cause test "fails muster under any level of scrutiny" because it required license applicants to prove they "have already become victims of violent crimes" before they could carry a firearm to protect themselves against that very violence from occurring in the first place.[17][19]

Black Guns Matter opined the proper-cause requirement had no objective standards, and therefore lent itself to discriminatory usage in practice.[17]

Opinion of the Court

The case's decision was released on June 23, 2022. In a 6–3 opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas,[20][21] the Court held that the state law was unconstitutional as it infringed on the right to keep and bear arms, reversing the Second Circuit's decision and remanding the case for further review. Thomas' majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, effectively rendered public carry a constitutional right under the Second Amendment. Thomas wrote, "The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not 'a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees. We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need."[22] Because public carry was considered a right, Thomas ruled out use of the two-part test to evaluate state gun laws, which generally involved application of intermediate scrutiny, that many lower courts had used, and instead evaluated the state's law under the more-stringent test of whether the proper-cause requirement is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.[23] Thomas wrote that gun control laws that identify restricted "sensitive places", such as courthouses and polling places, would still likely pass constitutional muster, though urban areas would not qualify as such sensitive places.[23] The opinion, abrogating the two-step intermediate scrutiny test used by the Courts of Appeals to address Second Amendment concerns, identified the new test to be used in applying the Second Amendment. The Court wrote, "When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's "'unqualified command.'"

Concurrence

Justice Kavanaugh penned a concurrence joined by Chief Justice Roberts, affirming that states may still implement licensing requirements such as background checks before issuing public carry permits. Kavanaugh wrote that these checks differ from the New York law as that law "grants open-ended discretion to licensing officials and authorizes licenses only for those applicants who can show some special need apart from self-defense."[22] Kavanaugh quoted from Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion in Heller, stating that "nothing in our opinion, should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."[23]

Dissent

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Breyer led his dissent by referring the amount of gun violence in the United States, including listing out several major mass shootings from the months prior. He subsequently wrote that "New York's Legislature considered the empirical evidence about gun violence and adopted a reasonable licensing law to regulate the concealed carriage of handguns in order to keep the people of New York safe", and that the majority decision established a new framework for courts to use in Second Amendments cases that would harm states' abilities to regulate guns.[22][24]

Criticism of dissent

Justice Alito wrote a separate concurrence to the majority, in which he criticized Breyer's dissent, stating, "It is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent's lengthy introductory section ... Much of the dissent seems designed to obscure the specific question that the Court has decided."[24] Dismissing Breyer's concern on a new legal framework for Second Amendment cases, Alito wrote, "Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun."[24]

Impact

While the ruling directly applied only to New York's law, legal analysts and lawmakers expected the ruling to be used to challenge the "may-issue" gun regulations in California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. Lawmakers in New York and these states began evaluating new regulations that would comply with the Supreme Court ruling while maintaining strict ownership laws.[25]

On June 24, 2022, the Acting Attorney General of New Jersey, Matthew J. Platkin, concluded that Bruen disallowed the state from requiring concealed carry permit applicants to demonstrate a justifiable need to carry a handgun and directed law enforcement and prosecutors to process applications on a shall-issue basis.[26] The Attorneys General of California[27] and Hawaii[28] issued similar directives.

Reactions

The Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul (D‑NY), called the decision by the court "frightening" and said it "strips away the state's right to protect its citizens". She also criticized the decision as "reckless" and "reprehensible".[29] By July 1, 2022, Hochul signed into law restrictions on public possession of guns on New York City's mass transit system and in Times Square, considering these to be "sensitive locations" as described in the Bruen opinion.[30]

The Legal Aid Society said the decision "may be an affirmative step toward ending arbitrary licensing standards that have inhibited lawful Black and Brown gun ownership in New York."[31]

House minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R‑CA) supported the ruling, saying it "rightfully ensures the right of all law-abiding Americans to defend themselves without unnecessary government interference."[32]

Law professor Steve Vladeck said the decision will "have monumental ramifications far beyond carrying firearms in public" and predicts there will be a "slew of litigation challenging any and every gun-control measure".[33]

References

  1. ^ Root, Damon (June 23, 2022). "In Landmark 2nd Amendment Ruling, SCOTUS Affirms Right 'To Carry a Handgun for Self-Defense Outside the Home'". Reason. Archived from the original on June 26, 2022. Retrieved June 26, 2022. In a landmark victory for gun rights advocates, the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled 6–3 that 'the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.'
  2. ^ Seddiq, Oma (June 23, 2022). "Supreme Court strikes down century-old New York law, dramatically expanding Second Amendment rights to carry guns outside the home". Business Insider. Archived from the original on June 26, 2022. Retrieved June 26, 2022. The landmark decision came 14 years after the nation's top court last significantly expanded gun rights.
  3. ^ Thomas, Clarence (June 23, 2022). "New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., Et Al. v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, Et Al" (PDF). supremecourt.gov. The Supreme Court of the United States. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 23, 2022. Retrieved June 23, 2022.
  4. ^ District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
  5. ^ McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h Liptak, Adam (April 26, 2021). "Supreme Court to Hear Case on Carrying Guns in Public". The New York Times. Archived from the original on November 1, 2021. Retrieved April 26, 2021.
  7. ^ a b c d e f g h Millhiser, Ian (April 26, 2021). "The Supreme Court will hear a major Second Amendment case that could gut US gun laws". Vox. Archived from the original on August 25, 2021. Retrieved April 26, 2021.
  8. ^ a b Wolf, Richard (April 27, 2020). "Supreme Court sidesteps major Second Amendment case, a setback for NRA". USA Today. Archived from the original on April 26, 2021. Retrieved April 26, 2021.
  9. ^ New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, New York Archived April 21, 2021, at the Wayback Machine, No. 18–280 (April 27, 2020).
  10. ^ Gorrivan, Charles (February 4, 2022). "The Sullivan Act and the Supreme Court: Are New York's Gun Laws Constitutional?". St. Andrews Law Journal. Archived from the original on May 10, 2022. Retrieved June 23, 2022.
  11. ^ a b Depew, Briggs; Swensen, Isaac (January 12, 2022). "The Effect of Concealed-Carry and Handgun Restrictions on Gun-Related Deaths: Evidence from the Sullivan Act of 1911". The Economic Journal. 132 (646): 2118–2140. doi:10.1093/ej/ueac004.
  12. ^ "An Act to amend the penal law, in relation to the sale and carrying of dangerous weapons". Laws of the State of New York Passed at the Sessions of the Legislature. 134th sess.: I: 442–445. 1911. hdl:2027/uc1.b4375314. ISSN 0892-287X. Chapter 195, enacted May 25, 1911, effective September 1, 1911.
  13. ^ a b Fritze, John; Jansen, Bart (April 26, 2021). "Supreme Court takes case seeking to expand concealed-carry rights in public places". USA Today. Archived from the original on April 26, 2021. Retrieved April 26, 2021.
  14. ^ a b c de Vogue, Ariane; Cole, Devan (April 26, 2021). "Supreme Court agrees to take up major Second Amendment case". CNN. Archived from the original on April 26, 2021. Retrieved April 26, 2021.
  15. ^ "[New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn v. Bruen] Oral Arguments | C-SPAN.org". C-SPAN. November 3, 2021. Archived from the original on July 4, 2022. Retrieved November 3, 2021.
  16. ^ "Majority of court appears dubious of New York gun-control law, but justices mull narrow ruling". November 3, 2021. Archived from the original on December 5, 2021. Retrieved December 5, 2021.
  17. ^ a b c Ellena Erskine. "We read all the amicus briefs in New York State Rifle so you don’t have to Archived June 23, 2022, at the Wayback Machine". SCOTUSBlog, November 2, 2021. Accessed June 23, 2022.
  18. ^ a b c d e ARUN VENUGOPAL AND HERB PINDER. "An upcoming U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a NY case could mean more handguns in public places Archived June 22, 2022, at the Wayback Machine". Gothamist, June 2, 2022. Accessed June 22, 2022.
  19. ^ BRIEF OF ARIZONA, MISSOURI, ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARKANSAS, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, IDAHO, INDIANA, KANSAS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NORTH DAKOTA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, UTAH, WEST VIRGINIA, AND WYOMING AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS Archived June 23, 2022, at the Wayback Machine". Supreme Court of the United States. Accessed June 23, 2022.
  20. ^ Williams, Pete (June 23, 2022). "Supreme Court allows the carrying of firearms in public in major victory for gun rights groups". NBC News. Archived from the original on June 26, 2022. Retrieved June 26, 2022.
  21. ^ "New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. July 4, 2022. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 23, 2022. Retrieved June 23, 2022.
  22. ^ a b c Williams, Pete (June 23, 2022). "Supreme Court allows the carrying of firearms in public in major victory for gun-rights groups". NBC News. Archived from the original on June 23, 2022. Retrieved June 23, 2022.
  23. ^ a b c Howe, Amy (June 23, 2022). "In 6-3 ruling, court strikes down New York's concealed-carry law". SCOTUSBlog. Archived from the original on June 23, 2022. Retrieved June 23, 2022.
  24. ^ a b c "Samuel Alito lashes out at liberals in guns case as tensions boil over at SCOTUS". CNN. Archived from the original on June 24, 2022. Retrieved June 24, 2022.
  25. ^ MacDermitt, Jennifer (June 24, 2022). "States brace for fight over gun laws after high court ruling". Associated Press. Archived from the original on June 24, 2022. Retrieved June 24, 2022.
  26. ^ "ATTORNEY GENERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT DIRECTIVE NO. 2022-07" (PDF). June 24, 2022. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 24, 2022. Retrieved June 26, 2022.
  27. ^ "Legal Alert: U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, No. 20-843" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on June 25, 2022. Retrieved June 26, 2022.
  28. ^ "Public Carry Licensing Under Hawai'i Law Following New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen" (PDF). Ag.hawaii.gov. Retrieved July 28, 2022.
  29. ^ "Supreme Court's Gun-Rights Ruling Is 'Frightening,' New York Governor Hochul Says". Bloomberg.com. June 23, 2022. Retrieved June 23, 2022.
  30. ^ El-bawab, Nadine; Katersky, Aaron (July 1, 2022). "New York governor signs bill to ban guns from Times Square, mass transit". ABC News. Archived from the original on July 1, 2022. Retrieved July 1, 2022.
  31. ^ Justin Rohrlich. "[Supreme Court Paves Way for Even Looser Gun Laws Weeks After Uvalde Massacre]". Yahoo News, June 23, 2022. Accessed June 24, 2022.
  32. ^ "Live updates". AP. June 23, 2022. Archived from the original on June 23, 2022. Retrieved June 23, 2022.
  33. ^ de Vogue, Ariane; Sneed, Tierney (June 23, 2022). "Supreme Court says Constitution protects right to carry a gun outside the home". CNN. Archived from the original on June 23, 2022. Retrieved June 23, 2022.

Further reading

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen&oldid=1103934962"