666 F.Supp.3d 902
D. Minnesota2023Background
- Minnesota law requires a permit to publicly carry a handgun and bars issuance to anyone under 21; sheriffs issue permits on a standardized state form if statutory criteria are met.
- Plaintiffs are three individuals aged 18–20 (would obtain permits and take training) and three gun-rights organizations with members in that age group.
- Defendants are the Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety (oversees forms, FAQs, database, reciprocity, and receives portion of fees) and three county sheriffs who process permit applications.
- Plaintiffs sued under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments and moved for summary judgment challenging the 21‑year age floor for carry permits; Defendants moved as well.
- Applying the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework (textual then historical inquiry), the court held the Second Amendment’s text covers 18–20‑year‑olds and that Defendants failed to identify historical analogues supporting the age restriction.
- The court declared the 21‑year minimum unconstitutional as applied to otherwise‑qualified 18–20‑year‑olds and enjoined Defendants from enforcing that age requirement against them (prospective relief via Ex parte Young).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 18–20‑year‑olds are among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment | “The people” means all Americans; Heller/Bruen language and militia laws show 18‑year‑olds were rights‑holders | Founding‑era age of majority was 21; historically 18–20‑year‑olds were minors and subject to restrictions | Court: Textual inquiry includes adults 18+; militia enrollment and constitutional usage support coverage of 18–20‑year‑olds |
| Whether Minnesota’s 21‑year permit minimum is consistent with the nation’s history and tradition (Bruen historical‑analogue test) | No founding‑era or adequately analogous historical regulations deprive 18–20‑year‑olds of the right to public carry | Points to campus rules, municipal ordinances, and post‑founding statutes as analogues justifying restrictions | Court: Defendants failed to identify “relevantly similar” historical analogues; age requirement not supported by tradition and is unconstitutional |
| Standing to bring this suit | Plaintiffs face credible threat of prosecution if they publicly carry without a permit; organizations have associational standing | Defendants note plaintiffs never submitted applications and contend no concrete injury shown | Court: Article III standing satisfied (individuals and organizations) — credible threat of enforcement and futility of applying established |
| Proper defendants / sovereign immunity / Monell exposure | Commissioner and sheriffs have sufficient enforcement connections to be sued for prospective relief under Ex parte Young; sheriffs act as state actors when implementing state permit scheme | Commissioner claims only ministerial role; sheriffs argue Monell bars suit (they act for counties or lack policy responsibility) | Court: Ex parte Young applies; Commissioner and sheriffs have enforcement connection; sheriffs act for State in permitting context, so prospective injunctive relief may be awarded against them |
Key Cases Cited
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (adopts historical‑analogue test: when text covers conduct, government must show regulation is consistent with historical tradition)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognizes an individual right to possess handguns for self‑defense in the home and interprets “the people”)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporates Second Amendment rights against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (permits suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officers despite Eleventh Amendment)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires an official policy or custom causing the constitutional violation)
- McMillian v. Monroe County, 520 U.S. 781 (1997) (governs when local officials act as state actors for certain functions)
- 281 Care Committee v. Arneson, 638 F.3d 621 (8th Cir. 2011) (discusses the enforcement‑connection needed for Ex parte Young)
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (2014) (credible‑threat‑of‑prosecution principle for standing)
- Hirschfeld v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 5 F.4th 407 (4th Cir. 2021) (discusses militia laws and inclusion of 18‑year‑olds in core Second Amendment rights)