138 S.Ct. 982
SCOTUS2018Background
- California imposes a 10-day waiting period for all firearm purchases, justified by time for background checks (including state AFS searches) and a "cooling-off" period to deter impulsive violence or self-harm; some exceptions exist (peace officers, special permit holders).
- Petitioners (Silvester and Combs), lawful California gun owners, challenged the waiting period as-applied to "subsequent purchasers" (people who already own firearms per AFS or hold valid concealed-carry licenses).
- After a 3-day bench trial, the district court applied intermediate scrutiny and ruled for petitioners, finding California produced no evidence that the 10-day period deters subsequent purchasers and that most background checks are auto-approved quickly for many buyers.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, applying an intermediate-scrutiny framework from First Amendment cases but upholding the law based largely on "common sense" that cooling-off studies apply to subsequent purchasers and that buyers might seek higher-capacity weapons.
- Justice Thomas dissented from the denial of certiorari, arguing the Ninth Circuit effectively applied rational-basis review (speculation over evidence), failed to defer to district-court factual findings, and reflected a broader trend of lower courts giving the Second Amendment less protection than other rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of 10-day waiting period as-applied to subsequent purchasers under the Second Amendment | Silvester: waiting period is not reasonably tailored to government's interests for subsequent purchasers; evidence is lacking that it deters them | Becerra: waiting period promotes substantial interests (background-check time and cooling-off) and cooling-off studies and common sense extend to subsequent purchasers | Ninth Circuit upheld under an intermediate-scrutiny test; denial of certiorari by SCOTUS (Thomas dissents) |
| Adequacy of evidence to satisfy intermediate scrutiny | Silvester: California presented no empirical evidence about subsequent purchasers and no justification for 10 days | Becerra: studies and commonsense deterrent effect of cooling-off periods suffice; risk of buyers seeking more lethal weapons justifies period | Court of Appeals accepted speculative / common-sense rationale; Thomas criticizes this as insufficient under intermediate scrutiny |
| Tailoring of means to ends (reasonable fit) | Silvester: 10 days not tailored—applies to all guns and many exceptions exist; background checks already create delays for most buyers | Becerra: uniform 10-day rule advances the substantial interest generally and less-tailored measures not required | Ninth Circuit declined to probe tailoring deeply; Thomas says failure to require narrower fit equates to rational-basis review |
| Appellate deference to district-court factual findings | Silvester: district court made factual findings after trial that the Ninth Circuit should have reviewed for clear error | Becerra: urged application of appellate standard as applied | Ninth Circuit gave little deference; Thomas faults the court for failing to respect Rule 52(a) and clear-error review |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (Second Amendment protects individual right to possess firearms)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (Fourteenth Amendment incorporates Second Amendment against the States)
- FCC v. Beach Communications, 508 U.S. 307 (rational-basis review permits speculation without evidence)
- Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761 (heightened scrutiny requires real harms, not mere conjecture)
- Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (regulation can be upheld on history, consensus, or common sense)
- Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 514 U.S. 476 (intermediate scrutiny requires sufficient tailoring)
- Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180 (intermediate scrutiny requires that burden not be substantially more than necessary)
- Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (distinguishing rational-basis review from heightened scrutiny)
- Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (appellate review of district-court factual findings)
- Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 (appellate deference to district-court findings)
- United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (clear-error standard for appellate review of findings)