GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. Atlanta Botanical Garden, Inc.
299 Ga. 26
| Ga. | 2016Background
- Atlanta Botanical Garden (private nonprofit) operates on city-leased property and maintains a policy banning weapons on its premises.
- Phillip Evans, a Georgia weapons-license holder and Garden member, visited twice in October 2014 while openly carrying a handgun; on the second visit he was detained by Garden security and escorted off the property by Atlanta police.
- GeorgiaCarry.org and Evans sued in Fulton Superior Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that OCGA § 16-11-127(c) allows licensees to carry weapons at the Garden and that the Garden may not ban or cause prosecution of such conduct.
- The Garden moved to dismiss, arguing declaratory relief cannot be used to interpret criminal statutes, that a declaratory judgment cannot compel third-party action, and that injunctive relief cannot inhibit criminal prosecutions; the trial court granted dismissal.
- The Georgia Supreme Court reviewed whether declaratory and injunctive relief were appropriate given (1) the statutory text authorizing licensed carry except in listed locations or where private owners exclude, and (2) Evans’ prior ejection (but no criminal charge or conviction).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether declaratory judgment is barred because it requires interpretation of a criminal statute | Evans/GeorgiaCarry: Declaratory relief may determine that OCGA § 16-11-127(c) permits licensed carry on the Garden grounds | Garden: Courts should not use declaratory actions to interpret or apply criminal statutes (equity won't aid in criminal law) | Court: Declaratory relief is available; touching criminal law is not fatal where an actual controversy exists and no prosecution/conviction is pending — reversal of dismissal on this claim |
| Whether petition was speculative or lacked a justiciable controversy | Plaintiffs: Not speculative — Evans was actually ejected and escorted off premises, creating a real dispute over rights | Garden: Plaintiffs only speculate about enforcement and possible prosecution | Court: Not speculative — prior ejection created sufficient controversy to pursue declaratory relief |
| Whether declaratory judgment would improperly compel the Garden or third parties to act | Plaintiffs: They seek a declaration of rights, not mandatory relief forcing the Garden to take action | Garden: The requested declaration effectively would force the Garden to allow weapons | Court: Declaration of rights is permissible and does not itself compel action; dismissal on this ground was error |
| Whether injunctive relief prohibiting the Garden from causing arrest/prosecution is available | Plaintiffs: Seek interlocutory and permanent injunction preventing Garden from causing arrests/prosecutions and banning licensed carry | Garden: As a private actor, it cannot be enjoined from prosecutorial decisions; injunction would interfere with administration of criminal law | Court: Dismissal proper in part — injunction preventing Garden from causing arrest/prosecution is improper (would interfere with criminal administration); but injunctive relief parallel to the declaratory claim (prohibiting the Garden from banning licensed carry) may proceed and was wrongly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Flake, 267 Ga. 498 (procedural standard for dismissal under OCGA rule) (describing motion to dismiss standard and construing pleadings in plaintiff's favor)
- Northway v. Allen, 291 Ga. 227 (appellate review standard) (motion to dismiss reviewed de novo)
- Leitch v. Fleming, 291 Ga. 669 (Declaratory Judgment Act) (defines scope of declaratory relief and "actual controversy")
- Morgan v. Guaranty National Companies, 268 Ga. 343 (declaratory relief necessity) (when declaration is needed to guide future conduct)
- Butler v. Ellis, 203 Ga. 683 (limitation cited by trial court) (equity will not engage in administration of criminal law — contrasted by Court)
- Total Vending Service, Inc. v. Gwinnett County, 153 Ga. App. 109 (declaratory relief touching criminal law) (declaratory actions can test validity/enforceability of statutes when actual controversy exists)
- Sarrio v. Gwinnett County, 273 Ga. 404 (declaratory judgment challenging criminalizing ordinance) (authorizes declaratory challenges to criminal statutes)
- State v. Café Erotica, Inc., 269 Ga. 486 (declaratory challenge to criminal statute) (court addressed merits of declaratory action challenging criminal statute)
- Burton v. Glynn County, 297 Ga. 544 (nature of declaratory judgment) (declaratory judgment declares legal authority without ordering action)