Taveras v. New York City, New York
- Subramanian
- 1:20-cv-01200
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Taveras v. New York City, New York, Judge Subramanian ordered briefing on the City’s request to pause the case pending Rahimi.
The plaintiff and the City of New York are affected. The plaintiff was ordered to respond by September 20, 2023, to the City’s request to pause the litigation pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Rahimi.
What happened
In Taveras v. New York City, New York, the plaintiff claimed that the New York City Police Department wrongly denied his application for a rifle-and-shotgun permit, violating his Second Amendment rights. The denial was based on circumstances involving two domestic-violence incidents, including an arrest, an order of protection, and an alleged violation of that order.
The City asked the court to pause the case until the Supreme Court decided United States v. Rahimi. The City argued that Rahimi could clarify whether laws restricting gun possession by people involved in domestic-violence proceedings are consistent with the Second Amendment. The City also argued that the plaintiff had later received a rifle-and-shotgun permit, reducing any delay from a pause.
Judge Arun Subramanian ordered the plaintiff to file an opposition by September 20, 2023, and to explain whether Rahimi was relevant to the case. The supplied text does not expressly state that the requested stay was granted, and it does not decide the Second Amendment claims.
The detailed version
- Taveras v. New York City, New York · No. 1:20-cv-01200
- Subramanian
- Sept. 18, 2023
Background
The plaintiff challenged the New York City Police Department’s License Division’s denial of his application for a Rifle/Shotgun permit. He alleged that the denial violated his rights under the Second Amendment. The License Division relied on New York City Administrative Code §§ 10-303(a)(2) and (9) and Rules of the City of New York §§ 3-03(f) and (g). The stated basis included circumstances surrounding two domestic-violence incidents: one that led to an arrest and an order of protection, and another involving an alleged violation of that order. The License Division concluded that the incidents raised safety concerns for the plaintiff and others.
The opinion also states that the License Division later issued the plaintiff a Rifle/Shotgun permit.
Request to Pause the Case
The City asked the court to stay, or temporarily pause, the litigation until the Supreme Court decided United States v. Rahimi. That case concerned the constitutionality of a federal law restricting firearm possession by people subject to domestic-violence restraining orders. The City argued that the Supreme Court’s decision could provide guidance on several issues in this case, including the meaning of “law-abiding” citizen, the government’s authority to restrict firearm possession by people considered dangerous or untrustworthy, and whether historical laws are sufficiently similar to modern domestic-violence firearm restrictions.
The City relied on the court’s authority to manage its docket and argued that the factors governing a stay favored pausing the case. It asserted that the plaintiff would not be significantly harmed by a delay, that the City could avoid duplicative motions or later supplemental briefing, and that a Supreme Court decision could help resolve issues also raised in other cases involving New York City firearm regulations.
Court’s Action
The supplied text ends with an order directing the plaintiff to file any opposition to the City’s stay request by September 20, 2023. The plaintiff was specifically directed to address whether, in his view, Rahimi was relevant to the issues in this case.
The supplied text does not expressly say that the stay was granted or denied. It also does not resolve the plaintiff’s Second Amendment claims or otherwise decide the merits of the permit denial. The ruling reflected in the supplied text is therefore an interim procedural action concerning briefing on the requested stay.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.