Anthony Browne v. Kimberly Reynolds, 150 F.4th 975

In 1991 Browne was convicted in Iowa of willful injury causing serious injury (a forcible felony) and criminal gang participation; he completed his sentence in 1998 and has been law‑abiding since.
Iowa law bars felons from possessing firearms and from obtaining handgun‑acquisition permits; a statutory restoration process exists but § 914.7 declares rights nonrestorable for those convicted of a forcible felony.
The Iowa governor has constitutional pardon power that can restore rights of citizenship, including the right to bear arms; the state statutes separately authorize statutory restoration but purport not to apply to forcible felons.
Browne sued Governor Reynolds and Sheriff Kunkel seeking (1) a declaratory judgment that § 914.7 is unconstitutional as applied, (2) an injunction against enforcement by the governor, and (3) an injunction preventing the sheriff from denying a permit absent an individualized finding that Browne is “currently dangerous.”
The district court dismissed Browne’s federal Second Amendment claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and remanded his state‑law claim to state court; the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to bring as‑applied challenge	Browne: he would apply for restoration/permit if statutes were declared unconstitutional; application would not be futile.	Defendants: no actual denial or application, so injury is speculative.	Standing satisfied — futility exception applies because statutory ineligibility makes application pointless.
Whether categorical ban on forcible felons violates the Second Amendment as‑applied	Browne: statute cannot categorically bar him without individualized determination of current dangerousness.	State: categorical dispossession for forcible felons is historically supported and constitutional; no individual inquiry required.	Held for State — categorical prohibition on forcible felons constitutional; no requirement of individualized dangerousness finding.
Whether governor must restore rights or sheriff must issue permit despite § 914.7	Browne: governor must make forcible felons eligible for restoration and sheriff must assess current dangerousness before denying permit; also argued pardon would not overcome statutory bar.	State: governor’s constitutional pardon power independently restores civil rights; statute does not and cannot limit that constitutional power.	Held for State — gubernatorial pardon can restore firearm rights; statute does not constrain the governor; lifetime statutory bar subject to pardon is consistent with historical tradition.

United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120 (8th Cir. 2024) (upheld categorical federal prohibition on firearm possession by felons)
United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024) (discussed historical tradition permitting dispossession and regulation of firearms)
Medina v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 152 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (historical practice supports disarmament of certain offenders)
Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 (1982) (futility exception to standing where application would be futile)
Dep’t of Educ. v. Brown, 600 U.S. 551 (2023) (invalidating a law can redress procedural injuries by allowing opportunity to seek relief)
Slater v. Olson, 299 N.W. 879 (Iowa 1941) (Iowa governor’s pardon restores civil rights and legislature may not encroach on pardoning power)
Bucklew v. Precythe, 587 U.S. 119 (2019) (historical punishments inform permissible regulatory scope)