Linton v. Becerra

Background

California Penal Code sections 29800 and 30305 generally prohibit people with felony convictions from possessing firearms and ammunition. The individual plaintiffs—Chad Jay Linton, Paul McKinley Stewart, and Kendall Jones—had felony convictions from Washington, Arizona, and Texas, respectively. The convictions were decades old, did not involve weapons or violence as described in the opinion, and had been vacated, set aside, or dismissed by the states where they occurred. Those states also restored the plaintiffs’ civil rights or firearm rights.

California nevertheless treated the original convictions as permanently disqualifying. The California Department of Justice denied firearm purchases by Linton and Stewart and denied Jones’s renewal of a firearm eligibility certificate. Linton also stated that California agents seized firearms he had previously acquired and owned. The defendants were California officials sued in their official capacities over their responsibility for implementing or enforcing the challenged laws and policies.

The plaintiffs brought as-applied challenges, meaning they challenged how the laws operated against them individually rather than asking the court to invalidate all firearm restrictions. They alleged violations of the Second Amendment, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and the right to travel under Article IV and the Fourteenth Amendment. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

Standing and Immunity

The court held that Linton and Stewart had standing even though they had moved out of California. They continued to own or intend to own property in California and stated that they wanted to possess firearms there for lawful purposes. The court reasoned that they faced a specific, non-hypothetical risk of arrest and prosecution if they possessed firearms in California.

The court dismissed the organizational plaintiffs for lack of standing. At the summary-judgment stage, the record did not show that Linton, Stewart, or Jones were members of those organizations, or that any organizational members had standing to pursue the claims.

The court rejected California’s argument that Deputy Attorney General Robert Wilson was protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court found evidence that Wilson had been directly involved in decisions concerning the denial of plaintiffs’ firearm rights. The court also overruled California’s hearsay objection to statements attributed to Wilson, treating them as statements of a party opponent.

Second Amendment Analysis

Applying the framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the court first considered whether the plaintiffs were among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. It held that they were. The court rejected California’s position that one felony conviction permanently removes a person from the Second Amendment’s protection, particularly where the conviction was later vacated or set aside and the person had otherwise remained law-abiding.

The court then considered whether California could show that permanently disarming these plaintiffs was consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court held that California did not meet that burden. It did not identify a representative historical analogue addressing firearm restrictions for people in circumstances like the plaintiffs’ circumstances. The court also rejected California’s request for additional expert discovery and briefing, stating that California had already had the opportunity to present historical evidence.

Disposition and Remedy

The court granted summary judgment in favor of Linton, Stewart, and Jones on their as-applied Second Amendment claim. The court did not reach the plaintiffs’ other constitutional claims and stated that those claims were terminated without prejudice. The court directed the parties to meet and confer about an injunction or similar remedy consistent with the order and to file a joint proposal by March 22, 2024. The opinion did not itself set out the final terms of that remedy.