Mark Baird v. Rob Bonta
81 F.4th 1036
| 9th Cir. | 2023Background
- Appellants Mark Baird and Richard Gallardo live in counties under 200,000 people but cannot obtain an open-carry handgun license; California’s licensing scheme effectively bans open carry for most residents.
- They sued the Attorney General in his official capacity and moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of criminal penalties for unlicensed open carry (Cal. Penal Code §§ 25850, 26350).
- The district court denied the preliminary injunction without analyzing whether appellants were likely to succeed on the merits or would suffer irreparable harm, instead focusing on speculative public-safety harms.
- Appellants appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion by skipping the threshold Winter factor (likelihood of success) in a constitutional (Second Amendment) case.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding the district court must (1) analyze likelihood of success under Bruen’s historical-analogue framework, (2) account for the impact of that finding on the other Winter factors, and (3) decide the preliminary-injunction motion expeditiously.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court may deny a preliminary injunction in a constitutional case without assessing likelihood of success on the merits | The court must analyze likelihood of success first; skipping it is reversible error | The court may deny on the merged public-interest/balance factors without reaching the merits | Court: Skipping the first Winter factor in a constitutional case is an abuse of discretion; likelihood must be assessed |
| How Winter factors apply where a constitutional right is alleged (weight of factors) | Likelihood of success is threshold and usually establishes irreparable harm and tips public interest/equities | Public-safety and administrative concerns can independently outweigh plaintiff's showing | Court: Likelihood of success is centrally important; if likely, irreparable harm and public-interest/equities usually favor plaintiff |
| Proper merits test for Second Amendment challenges after Bruen | Open carry is covered by the Second Amendment; the state must identify a well-established, representative historical analogue | State urged deference to contemporary public-safety interests and suggested other standards | Court: Under Bruen, if text covers conduct the state must show closely analogous historical regulation; the historical-analogue test is demanding |
| Remedial instructions on remand (scope and timing) | District court should promptly reevaluate and decide prelim. injunction applying Winter and Bruen | State emphasized public-safety concerns and administrative burdens | Court: Reverse and remand; district court must analyze all Winter factors, apply Bruen to the merits, account for effects on other factors, and act expeditiously |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (four-factor test for preliminary injunction)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (Second Amendment requires historical-analogue justification)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (individual right to possess firearms for self-defense)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporation of the Second Amendment against the states)
- Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2012) (violation of constitutional rights usually establishes irreparable harm)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (when government is nonmovant, public-interest and balance factors merge)
- Ariz. Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2014) (likelihood of success on constitutional claim compels finding that remaining injunction factors favor plaintiff)
- Olson v. California, 62 F.4th 1206 (9th Cir. 2023) (standard of review for denial of preliminary injunction)
- Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719 (9th Cir. 1983) (government cannot claim harm from injunction that ends unlawful practice)