S. Wilson v. Loretta E. Lynch
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16108
9th Cir.2016Background
- Wilson obtained and routinely renewed a Nevada medical-marijuana registry card but alleges she did not use marijuana; she sought to buy a firearm and was denied after the dealer saw her registry card.
- Federal law (21 U.S.C. § 812) classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug; 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) and (d)(3) bar unlawful users/addicts of controlled substances from possessing or receiving firearms and bar dealers from selling to persons they reasonably believe are unlawful users.
- ATF regulation 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 defines “unlawful user” and Form 4473 asks prospective buyers whether they are unlawful users; ATF’s Sept. 21, 2011 Open Letter told dealers that state registry-cardholders provide reasonable cause to refuse a sale.
- Wilson sued federal defendants asserting Second Amendment, First Amendment, Fifth Amendment (due process and equal protection), and APA claims; the district court dismissed and denied leave to amend; Wilson appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit considered standing and mootness, whether the statutes/regulation/Open Letter burdened protected rights, and applied levels of constitutional scrutiny and APA rules on interpretative versus legislative rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge § 922(g)(3) | Wilson argued statute chilled her rights generally | Defendants argued Wilson lacked concrete injury | Court: Wilson lacked standing to challenge § 922(g)(3) because she did not allege she is an unlawful drug user or possessed/received a firearm (dismissed on standing grounds) |
| Mootness of remaining claims | Wilson said she routinely renews her registry card; thus injury persists | Government suggested the challenge might be moot if no current card | Court: Not moot — accepted Wilson’s representation of renewal for appeal purposes |
| Second Amendment challenge to § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, Open Letter | Wilson argued these provisions burden her core right to purchase/possess firearms (as-applied claim) | Government relied on Dugan and public-safety rationale tying drug use to violence | Court: As-applied claim not barred by Dugan (Wilson alleges nonuse); the provisions burden core right but impose only a modest burden, so intermediate scrutiny applies and they survive (reasonable fit to prevent violence) |
| First Amendment challenge (expressive acquisition of registry card) | Wilson claimed acquiring a registry card was expressive conduct and the Open Letter incidentally suppressed speech | Government argued the regulation targets noncommunicative conduct and furthers public-safety, not suppression of speech | Court: Acquisition of a card can be expressive, but the Open Letter’s burden on that expression is incidental; O’Brien intermediate-scrutiny applies and the Open Letter survives |
| Fifth Amendment (procedural due process & equal protection) | Wilson claimed deprivation of liberty in holding a card while purchasing a gun and discriminatory treatment | Government argued no protected liberty interest and classifications survive rational-basis review | Court: No protected liberty interest to support procedural-due-process claim; classifications are not suspect and survive rational-basis review |
| APA challenge to Open Letter | Wilson asserted the Open Letter is a legislative rule requiring notice-and-comment | Government argued the Open Letter is interpretative guidance exempt from notice-and-comment | Court: Open Letter is an interpretative rule (does not create new law or amend regs) and thus exempt; APA claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dugan, 657 F.3d 998 (9th Cir.) (criminal-law holding that the Second Amendment does not protect unlawful drug users)
- United States v. Chovan, 735 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir.) (two-step test for evaluating Second Amendment challenges and intermediate scrutiny framework)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects individual right to possess firearms for self-defense)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires concrete, particularized, and imminent injury)
- O’Brien v. United States, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (test for incidental burdens on expressive conduct)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (reasonable-belief standard for stop-and-frisk illustrative of permissible burdens based on reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967) (freedom of association limits on statutes targeting group membership — discussed and distinguished)
- Dickerson v. New Banner Inst., Inc., 460 U.S. 103 (1983) (legislative intent behind firearms disabilities discussed)
- Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953 (9th Cir.) (historical scope of Second Amendment rights and analysis of core right)
- Raich v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 850 (9th Cir.) (no fundamental right to use medical marijuana under federal law)
- United States v. Carter, 750 F.3d 462 (4th Cir.) (evidence cited relating drug use to violence)
- United States v. Yancey, 621 F.3d 681 (7th Cir.) (supporting empirical link between drug use and crime)
- Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir.) (framework for assessing burdens on core Second Amendment rights)