## Facts

- Federal law classifies marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act.
- Nevada law permits medical marijuana and issues registry identification cards that protect qualifying holders from certain state marijuana prosecutions.
- In 2011, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued an Open Letter to federal firearms licensees stating that marijuana users are “unlawful users” for federal firearms purposes and that a known medical marijuana cardholder gives a dealer “reasonable cause to believe” the buyer is an unlawful user.
- S. Rowan Wilson, a Nevada resident, obtained a Nevada medical marijuana registry card and alleged she chose not to use marijuana.
- When Wilson attempted to purchase a firearm, a federally licensed dealer refused the sale because the dealer knew she was a registry cardholder and followed the ATF Open Letter.
- Wilson sued federal officials and agencies, challenging 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(d)(3) and 922(g)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the ATF Open Letter under the Second and First Amendments, the Fifth Amendment (equal protection and due process), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and Wilson appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Wilson had Article III standing to challenge 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) (the firearm possession/receipt prohibition).
2. Whether § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the ATF Open Letter violate the Second Amendment by preventing sales to known medical marijuana cardholders.
3. Whether the challenged scheme unlawfully burdens expressive conduct under the First Amendment.
4. Whether the scheme violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection component or deprives Wilson of due process.
5. Whether the ATF Open Letter is a legislative rule that required notice-and-comment rulemaking under the APA.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the complaint.
- The court held Wilson lacked standing to challenge § 922(g)(3) because she did not allege unlawful drug use or firearm possession/receipt, so she suffered no concrete injury traceable to that provision.
- Applying intermediate scrutiny, the court upheld § 922(d)(3), the implementing regulation, and the ATF Open Letter as a constitutional restriction on firearm sales based on reasonable cause to believe the buyer is an unlawful drug user.
- The court rejected the First Amendment claim, holding any burden tied to obtaining/holding a registry card was incidental and satisfied the O’Brien test.
- The court rejected equal protection and due process claims, finding a rational relationship to public safety and no cognizable liberty or property interest in purchasing a firearm from a licensee.
- The court held the ATF Open Letter was an interpretive rule exempt from APA notice-and-comment requirements.

## Legal Principles

- Article III standing requires a concrete, particularized injury traceable to the challenged provision; a plaintiff cannot challenge a firearm possession prohibition without alleging possession/receipt or unlawful-user status.
- Firearm-sale restrictions based on “reasonable cause to believe” a purchaser is an unlawful controlled-substance user may be assessed under intermediate scrutiny when they burden the ability to acquire arms through licensed channels.
- Under intermediate scrutiny, the government must show a substantial interest (such as preventing gun violence) and a reasonable fit between that interest and the regulation; a prophylactic inference based on medical marijuana cardholder status can satisfy that standard.
- Regulations aimed at conduct rather than suppressing expression, and imposing only incidental burdens on expressive conduct, are evaluated under United States v. O’Brien and may be upheld if appropriately tailored to a non-speech interest.
- Equal protection challenges to non-suspect classifications generally receive rational basis review; treating medical marijuana cardholders as a proxy for unlawful marijuana use in firearm sales can be rationally related to public safety.
- Procedural due process requires a protected liberty or property interest; there is no protected entitlement to purchase a firearm from a federal licensee on demand.
- Agency guidance that clarifies how existing statutes and regulations apply, without changing legal obligations, is an interpretive rule and does not require notice-and-comment under the APA.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld federal restrictions and ATF guidance barring licensed dealers from selling firearms to known medical marijuana registry cardholders, holding the scheme constitutional under intermediate scrutiny and rational basis review, rejecting First and Fifth Amendment claims, and concluding the Open Letter was an interpretive rule not subject to APA notice-and-comment procedures.


Wilson v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2016)