471 F.Supp.3d 482
N.D.N.Y.2020Background
- Plaintiffs Dark Storm Industries (a licensed firearms retailer), and two customers (Doherty and Schmucker) sued Governor Cuomo, Empire State Development (ESD), and a state official after ESD-guided COVID-19 executive orders designated most gun shops non-essential and allowed sales only to police/military.
- After ESD emails confirmed the restriction, Dark Storm closed retail sales to the general public but continued to supply law-enforcement customers; one individual plaintiff was unable to complete a purchase.
- Many other retailers that sold firearms (e.g., numerous Walmart and Runnings locations) remained open to the public during the shutdown; FBI NICS checks indicate continued firearm transactions during the period.
- Plaintiffs brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Second Amendment, Privileges and Immunities, and Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process violations; they sought declaratory relief.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment; the court assumed arguendo that the Second Amendment was implicated, applied intermediate scrutiny, and concluded the shutdown determinations were substantially related to the important government interest of limiting COVID-19 spread.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / Mootness | Plaintiffs alleged injury from inability to buy from Dark Storm when suit filed; seek prospective relief. | Defendants: reopening (phase 1) removed live controversy; plaintiffs lack standing for prospective relief. | Court: plaintiffs had standing when suit filed; reopening did not moot claims under voluntary cessation doctrine. |
| Second Amendment challenge | Dark Storm: ESD’s non-essential designation effectively barred legal acquisition of firearms and thus violated the Second Amendment. | Defendants: restrictions were neutral, temporary public-health measures that left adequate alternatives to acquire firearms and fit the COVID-19 mitigation purpose. | Court: burden was insubstantial; applied intermediate scrutiny and held the regulations were substantially related to the important interest of reducing COVID-19 transmission — defendants win. |
| Sovereign immunity / Proper defendant | Plaintiffs: sued ESD as the responsible entity. | Defendants: invoke Eleventh Amendment and dispute ESD’s status. | Court: declined to decide sovereign immunity because it granted summary judgment on the merits; assumed a triable issue on ESD status for analysis. |
| Privileges & Immunities and Substantive Due Process; Declaratory relief | Plaintiffs asserted these constitutional claims and sought a declaration that ESD’s rule was unconstitutional. | Defendants moved to dismiss these claims. | Court: plaintiffs abandoned these claims by not opposing; summary judgment for defendants and declaratory relief denied because underlying claims failed. |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognized an individual right to possess firearms but stated the right is not unlimited)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporated the Second Amendment against the states)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2015) (set two-step framework for Second Amendment review and applied intermediate scrutiny)
- United States v. Jimenez, 895 F.3d 228 (2d Cir. 2018) (applied intermediate scrutiny to a near-core Second Amendment burden)
- Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012) (upheld handgun regulation under intermediate scrutiny)
- Teixeira v. County of Alameda, 873 F.3d 670 (9th Cir. 2017) (vendor standing to assert purchasers’ Second Amendment rights)
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (deferred to public-health judgments during an epidemic)
- Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180 (1997) (explained intermediate scrutiny means a reasonable fit based on substantial evidence)
- United States v. Decastro, 682 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2012) (no substantial burden where adequate in-state alternatives to acquire firearms exist)
- Kwong v. Bloomberg, 723 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2013) (public safety is a substantial government interest)