Mishaga v. Schmitz
136 F. Supp. 3d 981
| C.D. Ill. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Ellen Mishaga, an Ohio resident, seeks to possess a functional firearm for self-defense while staying as a guest in an Illinois resident friend’s home; she does not want to carry or possess the firearm outside that home.
- Illinois requires a FOID card to possess firearms in-state but exempts "nonresidents who are currently licensed or registered to possess a firearm in their resident state" (Exception 10).
- Ohio does not issue a document licensing mere possession (only concealed-carry permits); Mishaga has no Ohio permit and does not have an Illinois driver’s license/ID, so Illinois denied her FOID applications.
- Mishaga sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Article IV and Second and Fourteenth Amendment violations and moved for summary judgment; defendants renewed their motion as well.
- The court assumed (for purposes of summary judgment) Mishaga otherwise qualified for a FOID card but found the question whether she faces a credible threat of prosecution depends on Exception 10’s scope.
- The court concluded Exception 10 covers nonresidents who are legally eligible to possess firearms in their home state (with or without a license document), so Mishaga faces no credible threat of prosecution and therefore lacks Article III standing; the court dismissed the complaint without reaching the constitutional merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / credible threat of prosecution | Mishaga will be prosecuted if she possesses a firearm in Illinois without a FOID or an out-of-state document; thus she faces a credible threat and may bring a pre-enforcement challenge. | Mishaga is exempt under Exception 10 because Ohio law makes her legally eligible to possess firearms; therefore the FOID Act does not criminalize her planned conduct and she lacks a credible threat and standing. | Held: No standing — Exception 10 exempts Mishaga, so the threat of prosecution is too remote; case dismissed for lack of Article III jurisdiction. |
| Meaning of "licensed or registered" in Exception 10 | "Licensed" requires an affirmative issued document (permit/license) from the resident state; because Ohio issues no such possession license, Mishaga is not covered. | "Licensed" means legally eligible or permitted by the resident state to possess firearms (document not required); "registered" is distinct and refers to enrollment/listing. | Held: "Licensed or registered" covers legal eligibility to possess in the resident state (document not required); the court adopts defendants’ reading. |
| Statutory construction / legislative purpose | Text and some exceptions suggest "licensed" means issuance of a document; Holmes suggests out‑of‑state permit evidence matters. | Reading "licensed" as legal eligibility avoids absurd results (exempting only residents of a minority of states with licensing regimes) and aligns with legislative purpose to identify only disqualified persons. | Held: Context, dictionary aids, nonsurplusage canon, and legislative history support treating "licensed" as legal eligibility. |
| Procedural objections (motion to strike defendants’ filings) | Mishaga asked to strike defendants’ renewed filings as untimely/noncompliant with court order/local rules. | Defendants complied with the court’s leave to refile; any tardiness did not prejudice Mishaga. | Held: Motion to strike denied; court considered both parties’ renewed and earlier filings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden and procedure)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requirements; injury-in-fact, causation, redressability)
- Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289 (pre-enforcement challenges and credible threat framework)
- Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Barland, 138 F.3d 1183 (7th Cir.) (requirement of "actual and well‑founded fear" for pre-enforcement suits)
- Lawson v. Hill, 368 F.3d 955 (7th Cir.) (risk of prosecution too remote where statute clearly fails to cover conduct)
- People v. Holmes, 948 N.E.2d 617 (Ill. 2011) (Illinois Supreme Court admitting out-of-state permit evidence under Exception 10 and reading FOID Act with AUUW statute together)