Christopher Baker v. Louis Kealoha
679 F. App'x 625
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Baker challenged Hawaii statutes and Honolulu enforcement that restrict public carrying of firearms (open and concealed carry) and sought a preliminary injunction and broader relief.
- Baker claimed Second Amendment and due process violations and argued he needed a firearm for safety in his work as a process server and future confrontations.
- The district court denied Baker’s motion for a preliminary injunction in a detailed 64-page order, finding he was unlikely to succeed on the merits, failed to show irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities and public interest did not favor injunctive relief.
- The district court also criticized the complaint as prolix, repetitive, and at times unclear, and noted Baker had stopped working as a process server (undermining his claimed need).
- Chief Judge Thomas dissented from the panel remand, arguing Baker lacked standing (he never applied for an open-carry license) and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction; he relied in part on Peruta (en banc) to foreclose concealed-carry claims.
- The lead disposition grants rehearing, vacates the prior memorandum disposition, vacates the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction, and remands for consideration in light of Peruta and intervening Ninth Circuit authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge open-carry licensing | Baker asserted statutes and enforcement denied his right to carry; he challenged both open and concealed carry rules | Defendants argued Baker never applied for an open-carry license and thus cannot challenge a policy he never submitted to | Dissent: Baker lacks standing to challenge open-carry because he never applied and offered no futility evidence; lead disposition remands for further consideration |
| Likelihood of success on Second Amendment claim | Baker argued statutes violate his right to carry firearms in public (open and concealed) | Defendants relied on circuit precedent and safety interests; Peruta en banc limits public concealed-carry right | Dissent: district court reasonably concluded Baker unlikely to succeed; Peruta forecloses concealed-carry claim and open-carry remains unresolved; panel remands for reconsideration |
| Irreparable harm required for preliminary injunction | Baker claimed need for self-defense in his work and possible future confrontations | Defendants noted Baker abandoned the process-server job and harms asserted were speculative | District court found no irreparable harm; dissent agreed this showing was inadequate under Winter |
| Equities and public interest for injunction | Baker argued little state harm and criminal prohibitions suffice | Defendants emphasized public safety risks and lack of evidence that criminal laws are adequate substitutes | District court found balance and public interest favored defendants; dissent found no abuse of discretion; panel remanded for further consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Friery v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., 448 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2006) (standing requires having submitted to challenged rule or showing futility)
- Madsen v. Boise State Univ., 976 F.2d 1219 (9th Cir. 1992) (standing principles regarding challenge to rules not applied to plaintiff)
- Taniuguchi v. Schultz, 303 F.3d 950 (9th Cir. 2002) (when statute’s face shows futility, application requirement may be excused)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standard and irreparable-harm requirement)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (individual right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes in the home)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporation of Second Amendment against the states)
- Peruta v. County of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (no Second Amendment right for general public to carry concealed weapons in public)
- Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976) (federal courts must respect state administration when granting equitable relief)
- Americans for Prosperity Found. v. Harris, 809 F.3d 536 (9th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for preliminary injunctions)
- Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U.S. 117 (1951) (federal equitable restraint in state law enforcement contexts)