Dearth v. Holder
395 U.S. App. D.C. 133
D.C. Cir.2011Background
- Plaintiffs challenge 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(9) and (b)(3) and ATF regulations restricting firearm purchases by nonresidents.
- Question 13 on Form 4473 requires state of residence; Dearth resides in Canada and lacks a U.S. residence.
- Dearth attempted to purchase firearms in 2006 and 2007 but could not complete because of residence requirement.
- District Court dismissed for lack of standing, ruling no ongoing injury or pre-enforcement standing.
- DC Circuit reverses, holding Dearth has standing to challenge the regulatory scheme and remands for further proceedings.
- Court relies on Parker v. DC to treat denial to pursue a purchase as a cognizable injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Dearth have standing to challenge the statutes and regulations? | Dearth has ongoing injury from denial of purchase. | No ongoing injury; past denial is insufficient for standing. | Yes; Dearth has standing. |
| Is the injury to purchase a firearm cognizable where the denial occurs via regulatory scheme? | Denial through Form 4473 constitutes a cognizable injury akin to Parker. | Injury must be immediate or imminent with current possession of a right. | Yes; ongoing denial through the regulatory process supports standing. |
| Does Parker v. District of Columbia control the standing analysis here? | Parker supports standing from being denied a permit or ability to purchase. | Parker involved a handgun registration issue, not the exact statutory scheme here. | Yes; Parker supports standing where the regulatory regime bars purchase. |
| Does Lujan/Haase framework require immediacy given travel status and nonresidency? | Dearth intends to visit, purchase, and store firearms in the U.S.; injury is present and real. | Some day intentions are insufficient without concrete plans. | No; injury is present and immediate due to intent to return and purchase. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C.Cir. 2007) (license/permit denial can support standing when it trenches on protected rights)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (injury must be concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent)
- Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (U.S. 1983) (past injuries without ongoing threat insufficient for standing in declaratory actions)
- O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (U.S. 1974) (requires continuing or imminent injury for standing in broad political challenges)
- Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902 (D.C.Cir. 1987) (standing lacking where no concrete plan to travel or particularized injury)
- Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1969) (some day intentions without concrete plans insufficient for standing)