Doe v. Wilmington Housing Authority
2014 Del. LEXIS 122
Del.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Jane Doe and Charles Boone are public-housing residents whose leases incorporated Wilmington Housing Authority (WHA) "Firearms and Weapons Policy." The policy forbade display or carrying of firearms in common areas except when transporting to/from a unit or for self-defense, and required production of permits upon reasonable cause.
- Violations of the policy subjected residents, household members, and guests to lease termination and eviction.
- Plaintiffs sued alleging violations of the Second Amendment and Article I, § 20 of the Delaware Constitution; the District Court granted summary judgment for WHA on both federal and state claims. Plaintiffs appealed only the state-constitutional claims to the Third Circuit, which certified two questions to the Delaware Supreme Court.
- The certified questions asked whether WHA may (1) prohibit display/carry of firearms in common areas except when transporting or for self-defense (Common Area Provision), and (2) require production of permits/licenses upon reasonable cause (Reasonable Cause Provision) under Article I, § 20.
- The Delaware Supreme Court held Article I, § 20 is an independent, broader source of gun-rights protection than the Second Amendment (it expressly covers defense of self, family, home, hunting, and recreation), and that intermediate scrutiny applies to the challenged WHA policies.
- Applying intermediate scrutiny, the Court found both the Common Area Provision and the Reasonable Cause Provision overbroad and unconstitutional under Article I, § 20; both certified questions were answered in the negative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WHA may ban display/carry of firearms in common areas except when transporting or for self-defense (Common Area Provision) | Provision unconstitutionally burdens Article I, § 20 right to keep and bear arms outside the home; common areas are effectively part of residents' living space and need protection | WHA argues it has important interest in resident safety and, as landlord/governmental agency, may reasonably regulate firearms on its property; policy narrowly tailored | Held unconstitutional: Article I, § 20 is broader than the Second Amendment; intermediate scrutiny applies; the ban is overbroad and burdens armed self-defense in areas integral to residence |
| Whether WHA may require production of permits/licenses upon "reasonable cause" (Reasonable Cause Provision) | Provision enforces the unconstitutional Common Area Provision and is therefore invalid/severable? no; it is part of the same enforcement scheme | WHA contends the inspection requirement aids enforcement and is reasonable to promote safety | Held unconstitutional and not severable: adopted contemporaneously to enforce the invalid Common Area Provision, so it must fall as well |
| Whether Article I, § 20 should be interpreted coextensively with the Second Amendment | § 20 provides independent, broader protection (covers defense of self, family, home; hunting/recreation) and may be interpreted differently from federal precedent | WHA argues rights are coextensive with federal Second Amendment and federal precedent applies | Held: § 20 is an independent source and is not a mirror of the Second Amendment; Hunt factors support independent interpretation |
| Level of scrutiny applicable to state-constitutional challenge under § 20 | Residents urged strict scrutiny (or Hamdan three-part test) | WHA urged intermediate scrutiny (as applied in analogous federal cases limiting out-of-home restrictions) | Held: intermediate scrutiny applies given the text, legislative framework, and prior Delaware jurisprudence; state must show policy is substantially related to important governmental objective |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (recognized individual right to possess firearms for self-defense in the home)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2010) (held Second Amendment applicable to the states)
- United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (framework for assessing whether regulation burdens Second Amendment rights and applying means-end scrutiny)
- Griffin v. State, 47 A.3d 487 (Del. 2012) (Delaware application of Hamdan three-part analysis and discussion of carrying weapons in the home)
- Doe v. Wilmington Hous. Auth., 880 F. Supp. 2d 513 (D. Del. 2012) (district court decision granting summary judgment to WHA on federal and state claims; factual and lower-court reasoning reviewed by Delaware Supreme Court)