Grant of certiorari

The plaintiffs petitioned for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, challenged the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's decisions, and specifically asked if the restriction on gun transport violated their Second Amendment rights, their Dormant Commerce Clause rights, and their right to travel. The Supreme Court granted the petition on January 22, 2019. Because of the case, the Supreme Court placed on hold the decision on whether to take Rogers v. Grewal, a New Jersey case involving the right to carry a loaded gun in public. The issue has resulted in a split among the courts of appeal.^[7]

The Supreme Court, until it accepted the New York case in 2019, had denied petitions for certiorari on other gun ownership cases. In one of the most recent denials, issued in February 2018 (during the 2017 term), Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the denial of certiorari and complained that in his view, "the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court."^[8][9] Justice Anthony Kennedy retired in 2018; his opinion on gun rights was generally considered balanced between government and individuals, which made it difficult for the justices to find the necessary majority to take a case. During the 2018 term, Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was appointed as Kennedy's replacement and holds conservative views and in previous opinions favored gun ownership.^[10] After the Supreme Court granted certiorari, Court observers wrote that if the Court did not determine that the case was moot, it could be a major case that would settle the question of the standard of review to be applied in Second Amendment cases (i.e., whether gun laws are reviewed under intermediate scrutiny, as the Second Circuit decided, or the more demanding strict scrutiny).^[10][11][9]

Change in city and state law and subsequent mootness briefing

Gun control groups petitioned New York City to change its gun laws prior to the case's decision as to render the case moot, fearing that with a conservative majority, the Court would create case law that would promote wider gun ownership and weaken gun control legislation.^[12][2][13] In May 2019, the city initiated a public response period to change the gun control regulation that allowed residents with valid gun licenses to be able to transport the weapons to the shooting ranges in the city limits but not outside the city. By the end of June 2019, the city had revised its gun control ordinances to allow licensed gun holders to transport their weapons in a safe manner to homes or shooting ranges outside of the city.^[14][15][16]

In filings in July 2019, the city wrote that the issue is moot because of its changes to its law.^[14][15][16] The city also pointed to a new New York State law, signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo, which allows licensed handgun owners to transport handguns to other places in which they are legally permitted to have them.^[16] The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association responded that the case had not been rendered moot and argued that even the changed laws represent a live controversy regarding transport of handguns in New York City. For example, the new regulations allegedly require uninterrupted transportation, which forbids a gun owner from stopping to refuel, and still limit transport outside of the city.^[17][12][18] The Court continued to instruct all parties to continue to submit filings and briefs prior to the start of the 2019 term. In the first week of the new term in September 2019, the Court considered the mootness of the case in closed conference.^[15][18]

The Supreme Court proceedings in the case took place amid the backdrop of a number of high-profile mass shootings took place in the United States, including the shootings at El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio, in August 2019. Sheldon Whitehouse and four other Democratic senators (Kirsten Gillibrand, Mazie Hirono, Richard Blumenthal, and Dick Durbin) filed an amicus brief that strongly urged the Court to find that the case is moot and criticized the Federalist Society and National Rifle Association of America for promoting what the brief called a "project" to undermine gun-control laws. Referring to the recent mass shootings, the brief said, "In the cloistered confines of this Court, and notwithstanding the public imperatives of these massacres, the NRA and its allies brashly presume, in word and deed, that they have a friendly audience for their 'project.'"^[12][19] The senators' brief argued that "ignoring neutral justiciability principles to reach desired outcomes" would damage the Court's legitimacy as an institution^[20] and accelerate a decrease in public faith in the judiciary,^[20][19] and suggested that the Court "heal itself before the public demands it be 'restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'"^[20][12][19]

In its October 7, 2019, orders, the Court denied the request to consider the case moot and stated, "The question of mootness will be subject to further consideration at oral argument."^[21]

Oral argument

Oral argument were on December 2, 2019.^[22] Observers believed from the questions asked that the Court would likely rule the case moot and so not attempt to arrive at a judgement that would extend Second Amendment rights. The more conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito seemed to favor expanding gun rights, but the liberal side of the Court was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts in asking what was left for the Court to rule on because of the change in the law since certiorari had been granted.^[23]

Decision

The court issued a per curiam decision on April 27, 2020, holding that the case was moot in light of the changed law. The Court ordered the prior rulings vacated and the case remanded to lower courts to consider "whether petitioners may still add a claim for damages in this lawsuit with respect to New York City's old rule."^[1][24] This is a challenged issue between the parties, and the Supreme Court noted, "Petitioners also argue that, even though they have not previously asked for damages with respect to the City's old rule, they still could do so in this lawsuit. Petitioners did not seek damages in their complaint; indeed, the possibility of a damages claim was not raised until well into the litigation in this Court. The City argues that it is too late for petitioners to now add a claim for damages."^[1]

While the decision was issued per curiam and thus meant to represent the collective decision of the court, reporters inferred the decision was based on a 6–3 vote based on the attached opinions.^[24] In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that the case was moot but wrote that he agreed with Justice Samuel Alito's "concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald" and suggested that "The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court."^[1] The day of the decision, the Court added ten Second Amendment-based petitions for consideration.^[25]

In a lengthy dissent joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch in full and Justice Clarence Thomas in part, Justice Alito wrote, "This case is not moot. The City violated petitioners' Second Amendment right, and we should so hold." He argued that the Court should have evaluated the city's laws in light of Heller and McDonald, and that by rendering the case moot, they have allowed the docket of the Supreme Court to be "manipulated".^[24][26]