Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

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

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen
Term: 2021
Important Dates
Argued: November 3, 2021
Decided: June 23, 2022
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
6-3
Majority
Clarence Thomas • Chief Justice John Roberts • Samuel Alito • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett
Concurring
Samuel Alito; Brett Kavanaugh • Chief Justice John Roberts; Amy Coney Barrett
Dissenting
Stephen Breyer • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 23, 2022, during the court's October 2021-2022 term. The case was argued before the court on November 3, 2021.

In a 6-3 opinion, the court reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that New York’s proper-cause requirement was unconstitutional, violating the Fourteenth Amendment by "preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public."[1] Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Samuel Alito filed a concurring opinion. Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, in which Chief Justice John Roberts joined. Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a concurring opinion. Justice Stephen Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined. Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Robert Nash and Brandon Koch each applied for a concealed-carry firearm license for the purpose of self-defense. The licensing officer denied both applications, finding that neither individual met the proper cause standard required by New York law in order to issue a firearms license for general self-defense. New York courts have defined proper cause as requiring the applicant to “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.”[2] Nash and Koch subsequently filed suit in federal court for violation of their Second Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the suit, citing the 2nd Circuit's ruling in Kachalsky v. County of Westchester that New York's proper cause requirement did not violate the Second Amendment. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit affirmed.[2][3] Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The issue: The case concerned a person's right to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense under the Constitution's Second Amendment.
  • The question presented: "Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."[4]
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    Except in limited circumstances not at issue in this case, New York state law prohibits the possession of a firearm without a license. Petitioners Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, members of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, applied individually for a license to carry a firearm pursuant to New York Penal Law § 400.00. In both cases, a licensing officer issued restricted licenses allowing Nash and Koch to carry firearms for the specific purpose of hunting and target shooting only. This restricted license allowed the licensees to carry a firearm only when engaged in the specific activities for which the license was granted.[2]

    Nash and Koch subsequently requested that the licensing officer remove the restriction from their licenses so that they could carry a firearm for the general purpose of self-defense. In support of his request, Nash cited a number of recent robberies in his neighborhood and his completion of an advanced firearms safety course. Likewise, in support of his request, Koch cited his experience in safely handling firearms and the completion of various firearms safety courses. The licensing officer denied both requests, noting that neither Nash nor Koch had proper cause to carry a firearm for self-defense under § 400.00(2)(f). New York case law defines proper cause as requiring an applicant to "demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community." The licensing officer found that none of the reasons offered by Nash or Koch for needing to carry a firearm for general self-defense met this proper cause standard.[2]

    After the licensing officer's decision, Nash, Koch, and the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association—of which Nash and Koch were members—filed a federal civil rights lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York for violation of their constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed the suit, holding it was bound by the 2nd Circuit's ruling in the 2012 case of Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, which found that requiring applicants to demonstrate proper cause in order to obtain a firearms license did not violate the Second Amendment.[2] On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit affirmed.[3]

    Question presented

    The petitioners presented the following question to the court:[4]

    Question presented:
    “ Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.[5] ”

    Oral argument

    The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on November 3, 2021.

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[6]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[7]


    Outcome

    In a 6-3 opinion, the court reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that New York’s proper-cause requirement was unconstitutional, violating the Fourteenth Amendment by "preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public."[1] Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Samuel Alito filed a concurring opinion. Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, in which Chief Justice John Roberts joined. Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a concurring opinion. Justice Stephen Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined.


    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote:[1]

    “ In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), we recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense. We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.


    The parties nevertheless dispute whether New York’s licensing regime respects the constitutional right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense. In 43 States, the government issues licenses to carry based on objective criteria. But in six States, including New York, the government further conditions issuance of a license to carry on a citizen’s showing of some additional special need. Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an ap- plicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution.[5]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Alito

    Justice Samuel Alito filed a concurring opinion.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Alito wrote:[1]

    “ I join the opinion of the Court in full but add the following comments in response to the dissent.


    Much of the dissent seems designed to obscure the spe- cific question that the Court has decided, and therefore it may be helpful to provide a succinct summary of what we have actually held. ...

    I reiterate: All that we decide in this case is that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding people to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense and that the Sullivan Law, which makes that virtually impossible for most New Yorkers, is unconstitutional.

    This brings me to Part II–B of the dissent, post, at 11–21, which chastises the Court for deciding this case without a trial and factual findings about just how hard it is for a law-abiding New Yorker to get a carry permit. The record before us, however, tells us everything we need on this score.

    ... My final point concerns the dissent’s complaint that the Court relies too heavily on history and should instead approve the sort of “means-end” analysis employed in this case by the Second Circuit. Under that approach, a court, in most cases, assesses a law’s burden on the Second Amendment right and the strength of the State’s interest in imposing the challenged restriction. See post, at 20. This mode of analysis places no firm limits on the ability of judges to sustain any law restricting the possession or use of a gun.

    ... Like that dissent in Heller, the real thrust of today’s dissent is that guns are bad and that States and local jurisdictions should be free to restrict them essentially as they see fit. That argument was rejected in Heller, and while the dissent protests that it is not rearguing Heller, it proceeds to do just that.

    ... Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear that they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves. And today, no less than in 1791, the Second Amendment guarantees their right to do so.[5]

    		”
    —Justice Samuel Alito

    Justice Kavanaugh

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, in which Chief Justice John Roberts joined.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh wrote:[1]

    “ he Court employs and elaborates on the text, history, and tradition test that Heller and McDonald require for evaluating whether a government regulation infringes on the Second Amendment right to possess and carry guns for self-defense. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008); McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010). Applying that test, the Court correctly holds that New York’s outlier “may-issue” licensing regime for carrying handguns for self-defense violates the Second Amendment.


    I join the Court’s opinion, and I write separately to underscore two important points about the limits of the Court’s decision.

    First, the Court’s decision does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense.

    ...Second, as Heller and McDonald established and the Court today again explains, the Second Amendment “is neither a regulatory straightjacket nor a regulatory blank check.”[5]

    		”
    —Justice Brett Kavanaugh

    Justice Barrett

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a concurring opinion.

    In her concurring opinion, Justice Barrett wrote:[1]

    “ I join the Court’s opinion in full. I write separately to highlight two methodological points that the Court does not resolve. First, the Court does not conclusively determine the manner and circumstances in which postratification practice may bear on the original meaning of the Constitution.


    ... Second and relatedly, the Court avoids another “ongoing scholarly debate on whether courts should primarily rely on the prevailing understanding of an individual right when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868” or when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. ... So today’s decision should not be understood to endorse freewheeling reliance on historical practice from the mid-to-late 19th century to establish the original meaning of the Bill of Rights. On the contrary, the Court is careful to caution “against giving postenactment history more weight than it can rightly bear.”[5]

    		”
    —Justice Amy Coney Barrett

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Stephen Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined.

    In his dissent, Justice Breyer wrote:[1]

    “ In 2020, 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms. See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fast Facts: Firearm Violence Prevention (last updated May 4, 2022) (CDC, Fast Facts), https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/ firearms/fastfact.html. Since the start of this year (2022), there have been 277 reported mass shootings—an average of more than one per day. See Gun Violence Archive (last visited June 20, 2022), https://www.gunviolence archive.org. Gun violence has now surpassed motor vehicle crashes as the leading cause of death among children and adolescents. J. Goldstick, R. Cunningham, & P. Carter, Current Causes of Death in Children and Adolescents in the United States, 386 New England J. Med. 1955 (May 19, 2022) (Goldstick).


    Many States have tried to address some of the dangers of gun violence just described by passing laws that limit, in various ways, who may purchase, carry, or use firearms of different kinds. The Court today severely burdens States’ efforts to do so. It invokes the Second Amendment to strike down a New York law regulating the public carriage of concealed handguns. In my view, that decision rests upon several serious mistakes.

    First, the Court decides this case on the basis of the pleadings, without the benefit of discovery or an evidentiary record. As a result, it may well rest its decision on a mistaken understanding of how New York’s law operates in practice. Second, the Court wrongly limits its analysis to focus nearly exclusively on history. It refuses to consider the government interests that justify a challenged gun regulation, regardless of how compelling those interests may be. The Constitution contains no such limitation, and nei- ther do our precedents. Third, the Court itself demonstrates the practical problems with its history-only approach. In applying that approach to New York’s law, the Court fails to correctly identify and analyze the relevant historical facts. Only by ignoring an abundance of historical evidence supporting regulations restricting the public carriage of firearms can the Court conclude that New York’s law is not “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

    In my view, when courts interpret the Second Amendment, it is constitutionally proper, indeed often necessary, for them to consider the serious dangers and consequences of gun violence that lead States to regulate firearms. The Second Circuit has done so and has held that New York’s law does not violate the Second Amendment. See Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81, 97–99, 101 (2012). I would affirm that holding. At a minimum, I would not strike down the law based only on the pleadings, as the Court does today—without first allowing for the development of an evidentiary record and without considering the State’s compelling interest in preventing gun violence. I respectfully dissent.[5]

    		”
    —Justice Stephen Breyer

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2021-2022

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 4, 2021. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[8]

    The court agreed to hear 68 cases during its 2021-2022 term.[9] Four cases were dismissed and one case was removed from the argument calendar.[10]

    The court issued decisions in 66 cases during its 2021-2022 term. Three cases were decided without argument. Between 2007 and 2021, SCOTUS released opinions in 1,128 cases, averaging 75 cases per year.


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 U.S. Supreme Court, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, decided June 23, 2022
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Beach, decided December 17, 2018
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Beach, decided August 26, 2020
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "No. 20-843: Question Presented," accessed April 26, 2021
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued November 3, 2021
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued November 3, 2021
    8. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed February 4, 2021
    9. ↑ Consolidated cases are counted as one case for purposes of this number.
    10. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Order List: 593 U.S.," May 17, 2021
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association_Inc._v._Bruen&oldid=9117287"