344 F. Supp. 3d 518
S.D. Ill.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (two anonymous Putnam County residents) challenge N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(5)(a), which makes names and addresses of handgun permit holders public, seeking a facial declaration and injunction against disclosure.
- Doe No. 1 already holds a handgun permit and objects to public disclosure on privacy grounds; Doe No. 2 has not applied for a permit because of the disclosure requirement and alleges this chills his Second Amendment right to acquire a firearm.
- Section 400.00 provides a narrow exception process for applicants who reasonably fear endangerment or harassment; plaintiffs allege they do not qualify for those exceptions.
- The Journal News previously sought and obtained litigation for permit lists in nearby counties; Putnam County was ordered on appeal to disclose records and will comply, and NYAG intervened to defend the statute.
- District Court considered NYAG's motion to dismiss (jurisdictional and merits issues) and—at the motion-to-dismiss stage—found Plaintiffs had Article III standing in limited respects, dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment privacy claim, and allowed Doe No. 2's Second Amendment claim to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing | Plaintiffs: concrete, imminent injury—Doe 1 faces imminent disclosure; Doe 2 is chilled from applying | NYAG: no imminent injury because no current requester (Journal News withdrew) and exceptions exist | Court: Doe 1 has standing for Fourteenth Amendment claim; Doe 2 has standing for both Second and Fourteenth at pleading stage |
| Ripeness / adverseness | Plaintiffs: facial challenge ripe because statute makes data publicly available and creates real choice costs | NYAG: not ripe; parties not adverse because county agrees with plaintiffs | Court: claims are ripe; adverseness satisfied because Putnam must comply with disclosure absent relief and NYAG intervened |
| Second Amendment burden and scrutiny | Doe 2: disclosure requirement chills exercise of core home-defense right and imposes substantial burden | NYAG: burden is minimal/de minimis and First Amendment analogies inapplicable | Court: disclosure implicates core home-based Second Amendment rights and alleges more than de minimis burden; intermediate scrutiny applies; claim survives motion to dismiss |
| Fourteenth Amendment privacy | Plaintiffs: ownership/status as gun owner is private and protected from public disclosure | NYAG: no precedent recognizing gun-ownership status as a protected confidentiality interest; statute's collection/disclosure permissible | Court: no established constitutional right to confidentiality for gun-ownership status under Second Circuit precedents; Fourteenth Amendment claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kachalsky v. Cty. of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012) (describing New York's licensing scheme and Second Amendment analysis)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (individual right to possess firearms for self-defense in the home)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporation of Second Amendment to the states)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements)
- ACLU v. Clapper, 785 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 2015) (standing for privacy-based claims where government already collected records)
- United States v. Decastro, 682 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2012) (two-step Second Amendment framework; standing for facial challenges)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2015) (Second Circuit on burden/core-right analysis and scrutiny)
- Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986) (disclosure can chill constitutionally protected decision-making)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (limiting speculative chains for standing)
- Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977) (recognizing privacy interests in avoiding disclosure and autonomy)
- Barry v. New York, 712 F.2d 1554 (2d Cir. 1983) (privacy/confidentiality in certain financial information)
- Doe v. City of New York, 15 F.3d 264 (2d Cir. 1994) (constitutional confidentiality for medical/HIV status)
- Cutshall v. Sundquist, 193 F.3d 466 (6th Cir. 1999) (standing to challenge registry disclosure where release can occur at any time)