Robert Mahoney v. City of Seattle
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18149
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2012 the U.S. sued the City of Seattle alleging a pattern or practice of excessive force by the Seattle Police Department; a settlement produced a court‑approved Use of Force Policy (UF Policy) governing officers’ use of department‑issued firearms on duty.
- The UF Policy requires force to be objectively reasonable, proportional, and necessary; it mandates de‑escalation “when safe and feasible” and permits drawing or using firearms when reasonably necessary for officer/public safety, including deadly force when death or serious injury is imminent.
- Approximately 125 SPD officers (Appellants) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the UF Policy violates their Second Amendment right to use department firearms for self‑defense and asserting related Fourth/Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment claims.
- The district court dismissed the Second Amendment claim for failure to state a claim; the officers appealed. The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and assumed, without deciding, that the UF Policy burdens conduct within the Second Amendment’s scope.
- The panel applied the Ninth Circuit’s two‑step Second Amendment framework, concluded intermediate scrutiny was appropriate, and upheld the UF Policy as reasonably tailored to the City’s important interest in public and officer safety.
- The court also affirmed dismissal of the officers’ substantive due process and equal protection claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the UF Policy burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment | Mahoney: policy restricts officers’ ability to use department firearms for self‑defense on duty | City: policy regulates employment use of government‑issued firearms and is within employer authority; not a classic Second Amendment prohibition | Court assumed the policy burdened Second Amendment conduct but did not decide definitively and proceeded to step two |
| Proper level of scrutiny to apply | Mahoney: policy implicates core self‑defense right, so strict scrutiny warranted | City: as employer regulating government‑issued weapons in the workplace, intermediate scrutiny is appropriate | Court applied intermediate scrutiny (government as proprietor; burden not substantial) |
| Whether the UF Policy survives intermediate scrutiny | Mahoney: policy overly restricts self‑defense and is not sufficiently tailored | City: policy advances important interests (public and officer safety) and is reasonably fitted (de‑escalation and reasonable‑force framework; allows deadly force when necessary) | Court held policy survives intermediate scrutiny—reasonable fit with safety objectives |
| Substantive due process and equal protection claims | Mahoney: freestanding right to self‑defense and unequal treatment relative to others | City: no recognized freestanding fundamental right beyond Heller; claims are essentially Second Amendment claims | Court affirmed dismissal: no freestanding fundamental self‑defense right recognized; equal protection claim not pleaded/cognizable |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (recognizes individual right to possess arms for self‑defense and invalidates laws that destroy that core right)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (incorporates the Second Amendment against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment)
- United States v. Chovan, 735 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013) (adopts two‑step Second Amendment inquiry)
- Silvester v. Harris, 843 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 2016) (applies two‑step test and intermediate scrutiny to firearm regulation)
- Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014) (framework for historical scope and level‑of‑scrutiny analysis)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (distinguishes government acting as sovereign vs. proprietor in constitutional analysis)
- Fyock v. Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2015) (articulates intermediate scrutiny standards for Second Amendment challenges)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (government regulatory interest in community safety can outweigh individual liberty interests)