Worth v. Harrington

Background

The plaintiffs are Kristin Worth, Austin Dye, Axel Anderson, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Second Amendment Foundation, and Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. The defendants are Bob Jacobson, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety; Kyle Burton, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Mille Lacs County; Troy Wolbersen, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Douglas County; and Dan Starry, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Washington County. The opinion explains that Jacobson and Burton were automatically substituted for former officials under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).

Minnesota requires a permit to carry a handgun in public, and the state’s permit law requires applicants to be at least 21 years old. The plaintiffs alleged that this age requirement violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. In an order dated March 31, 2023, the court granted in part the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, declared the age requirement unconstitutional as applied to otherwise-qualified 18-to-20-year-olds, and enjoined the defendants from enforcing it against the individual plaintiffs and other otherwise-qualified people in that age group.

The Commissioner then filed an emergency motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 62(d) and 60(b)(6) seeking to stay, or temporarily pause, the injunctive relief. The court considered the request under Rule 62(d) and did not address the alternative Rule 60(b)(6) argument.

Legal standard

Rule 62(d) allows a district court to suspend or modify an injunction while an appeal is pending, on terms that protect the opposing party’s rights. Courts consider four factors: the applicant’s likelihood of success on appeal, the harm the applicant would suffer without a stay, the harm a stay would cause the opposing party, and the public interest. The court stated that the first two factors are the most important, but that all four must be balanced.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that the likelihood-of-success factor favored a stay. Although the court stood by the reasoning and conclusions of its March 31 order, it found that the legal questions were unsettled and open to reasonable disagreement. The court identified questions about whether the Second Amendment’s reference to “the people” historically included people whom the law considered minors, how to identify historical analogues for modern public-carry regulations under the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc., Inc. v. Bruen, and whether the relevant historical period was the adoption of the Second Amendment or the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court also noted that the issues were important, novel, and developing.

The court found that the second and fourth factors—irreparable harm and the public interest—also favored a stay. It reasoned that the injunction prevented enforcement of a statute enacted by Minnesota’s elected representatives. It also found that, without a stay, counties might issue permits to 18-to-20-year-olds while an appeal was pending. If the earlier decision were later overturned, the legal status of those permits could be uncertain, potentially causing criminal-liability concerns for permit holders or requiring local authorities to defend permit revocations.

The court found that the third factor favored the plaintiffs because a stay would temporarily limit their ability to exercise rights that the court had recognized under the Second Amendment. But the court determined that this harm did not outweigh the other factors.

Disposition

The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter final judgment consistent with the March 31, 2023 order. It GRANTED the Commissioner’s motion for a stay. It stayed the injunction for 30 days or, if the Commissioner filed an appeal, for the duration of the appellate process.