Knight v. New York City
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-03215
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Knight v. New York City, Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo ordered the City to respond to Knight’s standing argument by December 9, 2022.
Cavalier Knight and the City of New York, which was ordered to respond to Knight’s standing argument; the order also names Keechant L. Sewell in her official capacity.
What happened
In Knight v. New York City, Cavalier Knight challenged New York City’s gun-dealer licensing scheme. Knight argued that he could do so even though he had not applied for a license because applying would have been futile.
At an earlier conference, the court directed the City to address that argument. The City’s November 30 letter did not discuss it, so the court ordered the City to explain why Knight lacks standing if applying for a license would have been futile.
The court gave the City until December 9, 2022, to respond. Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo issued this order; it did not decide whether Knight has standing or whether his challenge succeeds.
The detailed version
- Knight v. New York City · No. 1:22-cv-03215
- Valerie Caproni
- Dec. 1, 2022
Background
Cavalier Knight is challenging New York City’s gun-dealer licensing scheme. The opinion states that Knight had not applied for a gun-dealer license, but argued that applying would have been futile. The issue was whether he could nevertheless establish standing, meaning a sufficient personal stake to bring the challenge in federal court.
At a November 17, 2022 conference, the court directed the City to respond to Knight’s futility argument. The court also identified an earlier Southern District of New York decision suggesting that a plaintiff may not need to apply for a license before challenging a licensing scheme if the plaintiff makes a substantial showing that applying would have been futile.
Order
The court found that the City’s November 30 letter did not address the futility argument, even though it had been the central issue discussed at the conference. The court ordered the City to provide a response by Friday, December 9, 2022, specifically addressing why Knight lacks standing if, as he claimed, applying for the license would have been futile.
Effect of the Order
This order required a further response from the City. It did not decide whether Knight has standing, whether applying for a license would have been futile, or whether Knight’s challenge to the licensing scheme has merit. Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo signed the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.