## Facts

- New York law provided multiple handgun license types, including a “premises” license allowing a licensee to keep a registered handgun at a specified home or business.
- In 2001, New York City adopted a rule governing premises licenses that generally barred licensees from transporting their handguns outside the city, except that a licensee could take the handgun (unloaded, in a locked container) directly to and from an authorized shooting range located in New York City.
- The city had only a small number of authorized shooting ranges, and many were not readily available to the public (e.g., membership-based access).
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. and individual premises licensees sued the City of New York and related city entities, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and alleging the transport restriction violated the Second Amendment (and, as pleaded, also raised Commerce Clause and right-to-travel theories).
- The federal district court rejected the challenge and denied relief, and the Second Circuit affirmed.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the legality of New York City’s transport restriction.
- While the case was pending in the Supreme Court, New York State amended its firearms licensing statute, and New York City amended its rule, to allow premises licensees to transport their handguns (unloaded and locked) to a second home and to shooting ranges and competitions outside New York City.
- After these changes, petitioners argued the case remained live because the amended scheme still allegedly restricted travel with firearms by barring “routine stops” (such as for gas or food) while in transit; the City responded that the amended rule allowed such routine stops.

## Issues

1. Whether intervening amendments to New York State law and New York City’s rule rendered moot petitioners’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the former transport restriction.
2. If the case was moot as to prospective relief, whether the proper disposition was to vacate the judgment below and remand for consideration of any remaining matters, including whether petitioners could add a claim for damages for enforcement of the prior rule.

## Decision

- The Court (per curiam) held that petitioners’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the City’s former transport rule were moot because intervening changes in law allowed petitioners to do what their complaint sought to permit: transport to second homes and to ranges and competitions outside the City.
- The Court rejected petitioners’ efforts to keep the case alive based on disagreements about how the new regime operates (including the “routine stops” dispute), concluding that the pleaded challenge to the old rule no longer presented a live controversy for prospective relief.
- The Court vacated the Second Circuit’s judgment and remanded for the lower courts to consider, in the first instance, whether petitioners could still add a claim for damages with respect to the City’s old rule.
- Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment, agreeing the case was moot and indicating that the Court should address broader Second Amendment issues in an appropriate future case.
- Justice Alito dissented (joined by Justices Gorsuch and, in substantial part, Thomas), arguing the case was not moot and that the former rule violated the Second Amendment.

## Legal Principles

- Article III limits federal courts to deciding live cases and controversies; when intervening legal changes eliminate the complained-of restriction and provide the requested prospective relief, claims for declaratory and injunctive relief become moot.
- A party cannot keep a case alive by reframing the dispute to attack a new regulatory scheme when the operative complaint targeted a superseded rule and sought prospective relief now provided.
- When a case becomes moot while on Supreme Court review, the Court may vacate the judgment below and remand so lower courts can address remaining issues, including whether any retrospective remedy (such as damages) is available.
- Questions about whether plaintiffs may amend to seek damages, and whether such a claim avoids mootness, are ordinarily resolved first by the lower courts on remand.

## Conclusion

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, the Supreme Court held that intervening state and city amendments allowing premises licensees to transport handguns to second homes and to ranges and competitions outside New York City mooted the petitioners’ request for declaratory and injunctive relief against the former rule, vacated the Second Circuit’s judgment, and remanded for the lower courts to determine whether petitioners could still pursue a damages claim based on the prior restriction.


New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, 590 U.S. 336, 140 S. Ct. 1525 (2020)