Taveras v. New York City, New York
- Subramanian
- 1:20-cv-01200
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Taveras v. New York City, Judge Subramanian denied the City’s stay request, allowing the Second Amendment case to continue.
The ruling affects Alan Taveras and the defendants by keeping the case from being paused based on the pending Rahimi decision, while permitting the defendants to renew the stay request after the summary-judgment motions are submitted.
What happened
Alan Taveras challenged New York City’s denial of his application for a license to possess rifles and shotguns. The City asked the court to pause the case until the Supreme Court decided United States v. Rahimi.
Taveras opposed the stay. He argued that Rahimi involved a different firearm restriction and that the court could decide his challenge under the Supreme Court’s historical-tradition test for Second Amendment claims. He also argued that delaying the case would unfairly prolong litigation that had already proceeded through appeals and earlier motions.
Judge Arun Subramanian denied the defendants’ motion to stay with prejudice. The order states that the defendants may renew the motion after the parties submit their summary-judgment motions, and the clerk was directed to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Taveras v. New York City, New York · No. 1:20-cv-01200
- Subramanian
- Sept. 21, 2023
Background
Alan Taveras sued after New York City denied his application for a license to possess rifles and shotguns. According to his attorney’s letter opposing a stay, the City denied the application based on allegations arising from a domestic-violence arrest. The letter states that the criminal-court proceedings ended in Taveras’s favor and were sealed, and that he was not subject to an order of protection or disqualifying conviction when he applied.
The case had been filed in 2020, had gone to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit after the district court dismissed the complaint on the City’s motion, and had returned to the district court. The letter states that the case proceeded through another motion to dismiss and was then moving toward adjudication on the merits.
The requested stay
The defendants asked the court to stay, or pause, the proceedings while the Supreme Court considered United States v. Rahimi. The letter opposing the stay said that Rahimi concerned a federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), that bars firearm possession by a person subject to an active protection order. Taveras’s attorney argued that Rahimi was factually different because Taveras was not subject to a protection order and had no disqualifying conviction.
The letter also argued that Rahimi was unnecessary to deciding Taveras’s Second Amendment challenge. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which asks whether the Second Amendment’s text covers the person’s conduct and, if so, whether the government can show that its restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The letter argued that the City’s licensing process improperly relied on officials’ subjective views about whether Taveras was “law abiding” and on public-safety concerns.
Ruling
Judge Arun Subramanian denied the defendants’ motion to stay with prejudice. The order states that the defendants may renew the motion when the parties’ summary-judgment motions have been submitted. It also directs the clerk to terminate motion ECF No. 69.
The order addressed only whether to pause the proceedings. It did not decide whether New York City violated Taveras’s Second Amendment rights or resolve the parties’ anticipated summary-judgment motions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.