464 F.Supp.3d 1106
N.D. Cal.2020Background
- In March 2020 four Bay Area counties (including Alameda) issued COVID-19 shelter‑in‑place orders that closed non‑essential businesses; firearms retailers and indoor shooting ranges were not listed as essential.
- Plaintiffs (individuals, three firearms retailers, and five Second Amendment organizations) sued seeking a preliminary injunction requiring the counties to exempt firearms retailers and ranges.
- After briefing, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Contra Costa permitted in‑store retail and the claims as to them were held moot; Alameda County’s restrictions remained at issue.
- Alameda’s health officer promulgated the orders under state public‑health authority; public‑health declarations and expert declarations explained that limiting in‑person retail reduces COVID‑19 transmission.
- The court assumed both Jacobson and the Ninth Circuit Second Amendment framework could apply, found the Alameda Order facially neutral, temporally limited, substantially related to public‑health aims, applied intermediate scrutiny, and denied the preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness as to counties that reopened in‑store retail | Orders still burden Second Amendment rights; curbside/delivery do not cure harm | San Mateo, Santa Clara, Contra Costa now permit in‑store retail so claims as to them are moot | Case is moot as to those three counties; Alameda remains because legality of curbside/delivery under CA law is unsettled |
| Standard of review for COVID‑era restrictions on firearms | Heller forbids categorical suspensions; no interest‑balancing; strict review warranted for core rights | Jacobson and public‑health deference apply; otherwise Ninth Circuit 2‑step/interest‑balancing (intermediate scrutiny) | Court assumed both Jacobson and the Ninth Circuit Second Amendment framework could apply and evaluated under both; Order survives both |
| Whether Alameda Order likely infringes core Second Amendment right to acquire/use arms | Order effectively bars acquisition (no in‑store sales); amounts to categorical ban requiring strict scrutiny | Order is temporary, facially neutral, leaves alternatives (outdoor ranges permitted), and is substantially related to public‑health goals | Court held the Order burdens the core right but is a manner‑regulation of limited duration; applied intermediate scrutiny and upheld the Order |
| Due process / vagueness and public interest/balance of equities | Order arbitrary, overbroad, vague; constitutional violation favors injunction | Order gives sufficient notice and is narrowly tailored to public‑health needs; injunction would risk greater public harm | Vagueness claim rejected; public interest and equities favor defendants given COVID‑19 risks; injunction denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (public‑health regulations get substantial deference unless they have no real relation to the public health or are a plain, palpable invasion of rights)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects individual right to possess handguns in the home for self‑defense)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (Heller right incorporated against the states)
- Teixeira v. County of Alameda, 873 F.3d 670 (9th Cir. 2017) (right to acquire arms and maintain proficiency falls within Second Amendment protections)
- Silvester v. Harris, 843 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 2016) (intermediate scrutiny appropriate for certain regulations like waiting periods)
- Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014) (intermediate scrutiny—reasonable fit test for firearm regulations)
- Lynch (Wilson) v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2016) (regulation burdening core right warrants closer scrutiny; evaluated under Chovan two‑step approach)
- Chovan v. United States, 735 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013) (two‑step Second Amendment test: scope then level of scrutiny)
- Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011) (right to maintain proficiency; struck down range ban)
- In re Abbott, 954 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 2020) (applies Jacobson framework to review COVID‑era regulations)
- In re Rutledge, 956 F.3d 1018 (8th Cir. 2020) (same: Jacobson controls review of emergency public‑health measures)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standard: extraordinary remedy requiring clear showing)