Doe v. Wilmington Housing Authority
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104976
D. Del.2012Background
- Plaintiffs Jane Doe and Charles Boone challenge WHA fire нарms policies for public housing.
- Original Policies prohibited firearm possession; Revised Policy replaces with detailed rules and is in lease modification.
- Doe resides at The Park View (private building), Boone at Southbridge Apartments (public housing); both subject to WHA house/lease rules.
- WHA reevaluated after McDonald v. City of Chicago (incorporation of Second Amendment) and adopted a revised policy with a public hearing.
- Plaintiffs allege violations of the Second Amendment, Delaware Constitution Article I, Section 20, and seek preemption/authority relief and declaratory judgment.
- Court grants summary judgment for Defendants on all counts; original policies moot; assesses standing, mootness, and constitutional challenges to the Revised Policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of plaintiffs to sue | Doe and Boone have standing despite not owning firearms. | Plaintiffs lack injury-in-fact since no ownership or conduct violation occurred. | Plaintiffs have standing; pre-enforcement injury from potential eviction suffices. |
| Mootness of challenge to Original Policies | Challenge to original policies remains live if WHA could revert. | Policy revisions after McDonald render original policies moot; likely will not be reenacted. | Challenge to Original Policies is moot; Defendants granted summary judgment on Count I to extent it challenges Original Policies. |
| Scope of Second Amendment and Common Area Provision | Common Area Provision restricts core Second Amendment rights outside the home. | Common Areas are not the hearth and home; regulation outside core; standard is intermediate scrutiny. | Assuming scope, Common Area Provision survives intermediate scrutiny; not a core home-right restriction. |
| Reasonable Cause Provision analysis | Reasonable Cause provision burdens rights beyond what is necessary. | Provision furthers safety; permits verification of concealed/carry permits; supports enforcement. | Reasonable Cause Provision withstands intermediate scrutiny; upheld. |
| Preemption and WHA authority to adopt Revised Policy | State law preempts WHA from firearm regulation in public housing. | No express or implied preemption; WHA has broad statutory authority; policy consistent with state scheme. | Court predicts Delaware Supreme Court would not find preemption or excess of authority; Defendants prevail on these counts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heller v. District of Columbia, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (recognized core right to self-defense in the home; identified presumptively lawful regulations; non-exhaustive list)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (U.S. 2010) (incorporation of the Second Amendment through Due Process Clause)
- United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (two-pronged approach; presumptively lawful regulations; applies intermediate scrutiny for out-of-home restrictions)
- Huet v. United States, 665 F.3d 588 (3d Cir. 2012) (recognizes presumptively lawful regulations beyond Heller list; discusses scope and standards)
- Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011) (recognizes complexity of Second Amendment scope beyond home; cases applying varying scrutiny)
- City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283 (U.S. 1982) (voluntary cessation does not moot a case; exceptions for ongoing disputes)