N.Y.S. Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen

• Decision Date: 23 June 2022
• Docket Number: 20-843
• Citation: 142 S.Ct. 2111,213 L.Ed.2d 387
• Parties: NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Petitioners v. Kevin P. BRUEN, in his official capacity as Superintendent of New York State Police, et al.
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

142 S.Ct. 2111

213 L.Ed.2d 387

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Petitioners

v.Kevin P. BRUEN, in his official capacity as Superintendent of New York State Police, et al.

No. 20-843

Supreme Court of the United States.

Argued November 3, 2021

Decided June 23, 2022

Paul D. Clement, for Petitioners.

Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, for Respondents.

Brian H. Fletcher, Solicitor General, for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting Respondents.

Kevin M. Neylan, Jr., Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY, Paul D. Clement, Counsel of Record, Erin E. Murphy, Kasdin M. Mitchell, Nicholas M. Gallagher, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC, for Petitioners.

Letitia James, Attorney General, State of New York, Barbara D. Underwood,^* Solicitor General, Anisha S. Dasgupta, Deputy Solicitor General, Joseph M. Spadola, Eric Del Pozo, Assistant Solicitors General, New York, NY, for Respondents.

Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

In District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U.S. 570, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago , 561 U.S. 742, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (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 applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State's licensing regime violates the Constitution.

I

A

New York State has regulated the public carry of handguns at least since the early 20th century. In 1905, New York made it a misdemeanor for anyone over the age of 16 to "have or carry concealed upon his person in any city or village of [New York], any pistol, revolver or other firearm without a written license ... issued to him by a police magistrate." 1905 N. Y. Laws ch. 92, § 2, pp. 129–130; see also 1908 N. Y. Laws ch. 93, § 1, pp. 242–243 (allowing justices of the peace to issue licenses). In 1911, New York's "Sullivan Law" expanded the State's criminal prohibition to the possession of all handguns—concealed or otherwise—without a government-issued license. See 1911 N. Y. Laws ch. 195, § 1, p. 443. New York later amended the Sullivan Law to clarify the licensing standard: Magistrates could "issue to [a] person a license to have and carry concealed a pistol or revolver without regard to employment or place of possessing such weapon" only if that person proved "good moral character" and "proper cause." 1913 N. Y. Laws ch. 608, § 1, p. 1629.

Today's licensing scheme largely tracks that of the early 1900s. It is a crime in New York to possess "any firearm" without a license, whether inside or outside the home, punishable by up to four years in prison or a $5,000 fine for a felony offense, and one year in prison or a $1,000 fine for a misdemeanor. See N. Y. Penal Law Ann. §§ 265.01–b (West 2017), 261.01(1) (West Cum. Supp. 2022), 70.00(2)(e) and (3)(b), 80.00(1)(a) (West 2021), 70.15(1), 80.05(1). Meanwhile, possessing a loaded firearm outside one's home or place of business without a license is a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison. §§ 265.03(3) (West 2017), 70.00(2)(c) and (3)(b), 80.00(1)(a).

A license applicant who wants to possess a firearm at home (or in his place of business) must convince a "licensing officer"—usually a judge or law enforcement officer—that, among other things, he is of good moral character, has no history of crime or mental illness, and that "no good cause exists for the denial of the license." §§ 400.00(1)(a)–(n) (West Cum. Supp. 2022). If he wants to carry a firearm outside his home or place of business for self-defense, the applicant must obtain an unrestricted license to "have and carry" a concealed "pistol or revolver." § 400.00(2)(f ). To secure that license, the applicant must prove that "proper cause exists" to issue it. Ibid. If an applicant cannot make that showing, he can receive only a "restricted" license for public carry, which allows him to carry a firearm for a limited purpose, such as hunting, target shooting, or employment. See, e.g. , In re O'Brien , 87 N.Y.2d 436, 438–439, 663 N.E.2d 316, 316–317, 639 N.Y.S.2d 1004 (1996) ; Babernitz v. Police Dept. of City of New York , 65 App.Div.2d 320, 324, 411 N.Y.S.2d 309, 311 (1978) ; In re O'Connor , 154 Misc.2d 694, 696–698, 585 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1003 (Westchester Cty. 1992).

No New York statute defines "proper cause." But New York courts have held that an applicant shows proper cause only if he can "demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community." E.g. , In re Klenosky , 75 App.Div.2d 793, 428 N.Y.S.2d 256, 257 (1980). This "special need" standard is demanding. For example, living or working in an area " ‘noted for criminal activity’ " does not suffice. In re Bernstein , 85 App.Div.2d 574, 445 N.Y.S.2d 716, 717 (1981). Rather, New York courts generally require evidence "of particular threats, attacks or other extraordinary danger to personal safety." In re Martinek , 294 App.Div.2d 221, 222, 743 N.Y.S.2d 80, 81 (2002) ; see also In re Kaplan , 249 App.Div.2d 199, 201, 673 N.Y.S.2d 66, 68 (1998) (approving the New York City Police Department's requirement of " ‘extraordinary personal danger, documented by proof of recurrent threats to life or safety’ " (quoting 38 N. Y. C. R. R. § 5–03(b))).

When a licensing officer denies an application, judicial review is limited. New York courts defer to an officer's application of the proper-cause standard unless it is "arbitrary and capricious." In re Bando , 290 App.Div.2d 691, 692, 735 N.Y.S.2d 660, 661 (2002). In other words, the decision "must be upheld if the record shows a rational basis for it." Kaplan , 249 App.Div.2d at 201, 673 N.Y.S.2d at 68. The rule leaves applicants little recourse if their local licensing officer denies a permit.

New York is not alone in requiring a permit to carry a handgun in public. But the vast majority of States—43 by our count—are "shall issue" jurisdictions, where authorities must issue concealed-carry licenses whenever applicants satisfy certain threshold requirements, without granting licensing officials discretion to deny licenses based on a perceived lack of need or suitability.¹ Meanwhile, only six States and the District of Columbia have "may issue" licensing laws, under which authorities have discretion to deny concealed-carry licenses even when the applicant satisfies the statutory criteria, usually because the applicant has not demonstrated cause or suitability for the relevant license. Aside from New York, then, only California, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey have analogues to the "proper cause" standard.² All of these "proper cause" analogues have been upheld by the Courts of Appeals, save for the District of Columbia's, which has been permanently enjoined since 2017. Compare Gould v. Morgan , 907 F.3d 659, 677 (CA1 2018) ; Kachalsky v. County of Westchester , 701 F.3d 81, 101 (CA2 2012) ; Drake v. Filko , 724 F.3d 426, 440 (CA3 2013) ; United States v. Masciandaro , 638 F.3d 458, 460 (CA4 2011) ; Young v. Hawaii , 992 F.3d 765, 773 (CA9 2021) (en banc), with Wrenn v. District of Columbia , 864 F.3d 650, 668 (CADC 2017).

B

As set forth in the pleadings below, petitioners Brandon Koch and Robert Nash are law-abiding, adult citizens of Rensselaer County, New York. Koch lives in Troy, while Nash lives in Averill Park. Petitioner New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., is a public-interest group organized to defend the Second Amendment rights of New Yorkers. Both Koch and Nash are members.

In 2014, Nash applied for an unrestricted license to carry a handgun in public. Nash did not claim any unique danger to his personal safety; he simply wanted to carry a handgun for self-defense. In early 2015, the State denied Nash's application for an unrestricted license but granted him a restricted license for hunting and target shooting only. In late 2016, Nash asked a licensing officer to remove the restrictions, citing a string of recent robberies in his neighborhood. After an informal hearing, the licensing officer denied the request. The officer reiterated that Nash's existing license permitted him "to carry concealed for purposes of off road back country, outdoor activities similar to hunting," such as "fishing, hiking & camping etc." App. 41. But, at the same time, the officer emphasized that the restrictions were "intended to prohibit [Nash] from carrying concealed in ANY LOCATION typically open to and frequented by the general public." Ibid.

Between 2008 and 2017, Koch was in the same position as Nash: He faced no special dangers, wanted a handgun for general self-defense, and had only a restricted license permitting him to carry a handgun outside the home for hunting and target shooting. In late 2017, Koch applied to a licensing officer to remove the restrictions on his license, citing his extensive experience in safely handling firearms. Like Nash's application, Koch's was denied, except that the officer permitted Koch to "carry to and from work." Id ., at 114.

C

Respondents are the superintendent of the New York...