Friedman v. City of Highland Park
68 F. Supp. 3d 895
N.D. Ill.2014Background
- Highland Park, IL enacted an ordinance (Chapter 136) banning defined “Assault Weapons” and "Large Capacity Magazines" (LCMs), with exemptions for certain officials and retired officers and misdemeanor penalties for violations.
- The ordinance: prohibits manufacture, sale, transfer, possession of weapons with listed features or models and magazines >10 rounds; requires owners to remove, modify, surrender, or otherwise render banned items exempt within 60 days of effective date.
- Plaintiffs Dr. Arie Friedman and Illinois State Rifle Association sued, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief; cross-motions for summary judgment were filed and consolidated with preliminary-injunction issues.
- Plaintiffs argued the banned weapons/magazines are in common lawful use (categorically protected by the Second Amendment) and, alternatively, that the ordinance fails heightened scrutiny.
- Highland Park argued the weapons derive from military designs, are offensive in purpose, are not especially suited for home self-defense, and that the ordinance reasonably furthers the important government interest of public safety (mass-shooting mitigation).
- The court found disputed factual evidence about prevalence and lawful use of the banned items but concluded the ordinance implicates the Second Amendment and proceeded to intermediate (sliding-scale) scrutiny.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the banned "Assault Weapons" and LCMs are "commonly used for lawful purposes" and thus categorically protected under the Second Amendment | Weapons (esp. AR-type rifles) and LCMs are widely owned and used for lawful purposes (target shooting, hunting, self-defense) | Prevalence is uncertain; features derive from military weapons and are ill-suited or unnecessary for home defense | Court: Common-use question unresolved on record; assumed Second Amendment implication and moved to further scrutiny |
| Proper level of scrutiny for the ordinance | Plaintiffs: severe burden on core self-defense rights, requiring strict scrutiny | Highland Park: burden is modest; intermediate (sliding-scale) scrutiny appropriate | Court: Ordinance imposes a marginal (not severe) burden on core right; not strict scrutiny but "not-quite-strict"/intermediate scrutiny applies |
| Whether Highland Park met its burden to justify the ordinance under intermediate scrutiny | Plaintiffs: Highland Park offered insufficient evidence linking the ban to public-safety benefits | Highland Park: demonstrated important public-safety interest and close fit — military-origin features and LCMs increase lethality and risk in mass shootings | Court: Highland Park established an important interest and a close fit; ordinance survives intermediate scrutiny |
| Relief: validity and enforceability of the ordinance | Plaintiffs: ordinance unconstitutional; seek injunction and declaratory relief | Highland Park: ordinance is constitutional and should be enforced | Court: Granted Highland Park summary judgment; denied Plaintiffs’ summary judgment; ordinance remains in effect |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (recognizes individual right to possess firearms for self-defense; distinguishes "dangerous and unusual" weapons)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (incorporates Second Amendment right against states)
- Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir.) (two-step approach: historical/textual inquiry then means-end scrutiny; sliding-scale review of burden)
- Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir.) (public carriage of firearms; importance of self-defense outside the home; application of balancing/scrutiny)
- Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II), 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir.) (addresses assault-weapons/LCS bans and applies intermediate scrutiny)