Hightower v. City of Boston
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18445
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Hightower is a former Boston Police officer whose Class A license to carry large-capacity firearms was revoked in 2008 after the Licensing Unit found she answered Form G13-S falsely about pending complaints; the revocation followed BPD Internal Affairs findings related to a 2005 investigation and a 2004 assault complaint involving another officer; Hightower did not appeal the revocation or seek a different license, and she surrendered her firearms following the revocation; Massachusetts law sections 131 and 129D govern renewal, revocation, and post-revocation transfer of firearms; the district court granted summary judgment for the defendants; the First Circuit reviews de novo and decides standing, ripeness, and the merits of constitutional challenges to Massachusetts’ firearms licensing scheme; the court assumes a factual deprivation to analyze due process and equal protection claims; the constitutionality of revocation rests on whether false information on license applications can justify denial or revocation under an objective suitability framework; the court ultimately affirms summary judgment against Hightower.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Second Amendment as-applied challenge | Hightower asserts the right to carry a concealed handgun publicly, arguing the revocation infringes the Second Amendment. | Defendants contend the revocation was based on truthfulness on the application, a permissible objective ground. | As-applied claim fails; carrying outside home is not protected in this context and false information basis is permissible. |
| Second Amendment facial challenge | Hightower seeks a declaration that the suitability-based revocation statute is facially unconstitutional. | Defendants argue the statute has a plainly legitimate sweep and is not facially invalid. | Facial challenge fails; statute has objective grounds (false information) and Salerno framework applies, with no overbreadth. |
| Equal protection claim | Hightower argues discriminatory treatment in revocation compared to similarly situated individuals. | Defendants assert rational-basis review suffices given no suspect class and no Second Amendment violation. | Equal protection claim fails under rational-basis review. |
| Procedural due process | Hightower contends predeprivation process was required before revocation and postdeprivation process is inadequate. | Massachusetts law permits postdeprivation review with an evidentiary hearing; predeprivation hearing is not always required for public-safety licenses. | Predeprivation process not required; postdeprivation process with an evidentiary hearing is adequate. |
| Standing and ripeness | Hightower lacks standing to challenge licenses she did not seek. | Revocation injury suffices for standing; ripeness remains given potential future licenses. | Hightower has standing and ripeness for the challenged claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2011) (Second Amendment outside the home, at least in some form; not recognizing broad overbreadth.)
- City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publ'g Co., 486 U.S. 750 (U.S. 1988) (First Amendment facial challenges require careful consideration of the risks of prior restraint.)
- Heller v. District of Columbia, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (Core home-defense right; longstanding restrictions on concealed carry are presumptively lawful.)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (S. Ct. 2010) (Incorporates Second Amendment against the states.)
- United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (Discusses limits of facial challenges outside First Amendment context.)