Frey v. Bruen

Background

Jason Frey, Brianna Frey, Jack Cheng, and William Sappe brought claims alleging that various New York handgun licensing and carrying rules violated the Second Amendment. The defendants named in the complaint were Kevin P. Bruen, in his official capacity as Acting Superintendent of the New York State Police; New York City; and Dermot Shea, in his official capacity as NYPD Police Commissioner.

Bruen moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The court explained that standing is part of subject-matter jurisdiction and requires a plaintiff to show an actual injury connected to the challenged conduct.

Standing and Disposition of the Claims

The court relied on its prior ruling in the same case and held that the plaintiffs had failed to show an injury in fact. It therefore dismissed Counts I, III, and IV as to Bruen. The court also dismissed those counts as to New York City and the NYPD Commissioner on its own authority because the same claims were asserted against those defendants, even though they had not filed a separate motion or joined Bruen’s motion.

Count II challenged discretionary standards used in issuing handgun licenses, including standards in New York Penal Law sections 400.00(1)(b) and (n) and New York City rules. Count V asserted a claim under the rule from Monell v. Department of Social Services—a claim seeking to hold a local government responsible for an allegedly unlawful policy or practice—against New York City. Because those claims had not been addressed by the court’s earlier opinion and the remaining defendants had not moved to dismiss them, Counts II and V remained pending.

Effect of the Supreme Court’s Decision

The court also examined whether the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen had made the plaintiffs’ claims moot. The Supreme Court had invalidated New York’s “proper cause” requirement for obtaining a concealed-carry license and had held that Second Amendment regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The district court concluded that the Supreme Court’s decision mooted Count I only to the extent the plaintiffs sought to carry concealed handguns without satisfying the invalidated “proper cause” requirement. The Supreme Court decision did not establish that New York’s licensing requirements generally, New York City’s separate licensing rules, or the criminalization of possession without a valid license were unconstitutional. The court concluded that the portions of Count I concerning possession in New York City or open carrying were not moot.

The court further concluded that the Supreme Court decision did not moot Count II’s challenge to other discretionary licensing standards, Count III’s challenge to the separate New York City licensing requirement, Count IV’s challenge to New York’s open-carry ban, or Count V’s challenge to New York City licensing rules concerning criminal history, driving history, and other information.

Order

The court granted Bruen’s motion to dismiss. Counts I, III, and IV were dismissed without prejudice. The plaintiffs were given until October 3, 2022, to file an amended complaint concerning claims not dismissed with prejudice. If they failed to do so without showing good cause, the claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice. The court also denied as moot the plaintiffs’ request for leave to file a second preliminary-injunction motion.