Jackson v. City of S.F.
576 U.S. 1013
SCOTUS2015Background
- San Francisco Police Code §4512 requires handguns in residences to be stored in locked containers or disabled with approved trigger locks unless carried on person or under peace officer control; violations carry jail and/or fine.
- The rule applies universally in homes regardless of presence of children.
- Six San Francisco residents and two organizations sued, alleging the storage requirement makes handguns inoperable for immediate in-home self-defense, particularly during night or when occupants are indisposed.
- District Court denied a preliminary injunction; the Ninth Circuit affirmed, acknowledging the law burdens the Second Amendment core but applying intermediate scrutiny and upholding the ordinance as substantially related to reducing gun injuries/deaths.
- Justice Thomas (joined by Justice Scalia) dissented from the denial of certiorari, arguing the Ninth Circuit’s decision conflicts with Heller and improperly permits burdens on the core right to self-defense without proper review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SF's locked-storage law violates the Second Amendment by preventing operable in-home self-defense | Law renders handguns inoperable for immediate self-defense (esp. at night); burdens core right | Law still allows possession and is targeted to reduce suicides/accidents/child injuries; residents can access safes quickly | Ninth Circuit: law burdens core right but is constitutional under intermediate scrutiny; cert. denied by Supreme Court (Thomas dissented) |
| What level of scrutiny applies to a law that burdens the core Second Amendment right | Plaintiffs: Heller protects core self-defense rights and such burdens demand heightened review (close to strict scrutiny) | City: burden is not severe; modern safes allow quick access so intermediate scrutiny suffices | Ninth Circuit applied intermediate scrutiny and found substantial relation to safety interests |
| Whether the burden is ‘‘substantial’’ enough to invalidate the law | Plaintiffs: delays from safes/locks are significant and can be life‑threatening; thus substantial burden | City: burden less than total ban; safes can be opened quickly; risks to children and suicides justify regulation | Ninth Circuit: burden not severe enough to be unconstitutional; upheld law |
| Whether Supreme Court should grant certiorari to clarify Second Amendment protection scope | Petitioners: lower courts are misapplying Heller and diminishing core protection for self-defense; cert review needed | Implicit: case not suitable for certiorari (Court declined to take it) | Supreme Court denied certiorari; Thomas (with Scalia) dissented urging review |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects individual right to possess arms for self-defense in the home; struck down handgun ban and invalidated trigger‑lock requirement that prevented immediate use)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporated Second Amendment against the States; reaffirmed self‑defense as central to the right)
- Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) (explained intermediate scrutiny requires regulations not to burden substantially more than necessary)
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) (recognized Court’s willingness to review significant constitutional questions even when decisions are splitless)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (example of Court granting review to address major constitutional questions despite prior precedent)