2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-6-2014

Doe v. Wilmington Housing Authority

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-3433

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2014 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Doe v. Wilmington Housing Authority" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 544.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014/544
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 12-3433

____________

JANE DOE; CHARLES BOONE,

Appellants

v.

WILMINGTON HOUSING AUTHORITY; FREDERICK S. PURNELL, SR., in his

official capacity as executive director of the Wilmington Housing Authority

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware

(District Court No.: 1-10-cv-00473)

District Judge: Honorable Leonard P. Stark

Argued May 23, 2013

Before: RENDELL and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges,

and ROSENTHAL*, District Judge

(Opinion filed: June 6, 2014)

 

*

 The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, United States District Judge for the Southern District 

of Texas, sitting by designation.
2

Francis G.X. Pileggi, Esq. [ARGUED]

Penelope B. O’Connell, Esq.

Jill K. Agro, Esq.

Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, LLC

222 Delaware Avenue, 7th Floor

Wilmington, DE 19801

Counsel for Appellants

Barry M. Willoughby, Esq. [ARGUED]

Lauren E.M. Russell, Esq.

Young, Conway, Stargatt & Taylor, LLP

100 North King Street

Rodney Square

Wilmington, DE 19801

Counsel for Appellees

Adam K. Levin

Hogan Lovells US

555 Thirteenth Street, N.W.

Columbia Square

Washington, D.C. 20004

Counsel for The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 

Amicus Appellee

_____________
3

O P I N I O N

_____________

ROSENTHAL, District Judge:

Appellants Jane Doe and Charles Boone sued the Wilmington Housing Authority 

(WHA), challenging parts of its revised firearms policy under the Second Amendment of 

the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution. 

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware held that the Common Area 

Provision (paragraph 3) and the Reasonable Cause Provision (paragraph 4) of the revised

policy did not offend either the Second Amendment or Article I, Section 20. Doe v. 

Wilmington Hous. Auth., 880 F. Supp. 2d 513, 536–39 (D. Del. 2012). Appellants did not 

appeal the Second Amendment ruling but did appeal the ruling on the Delaware 

Constitution.1 

Because the appeal raised unresolved questions of Delaware constitutional law, on 

July 18, 2013, we asked the Delaware Supreme Court to accept certification under Article 

IV, Section 11(8) of the Delaware Constitution and Delaware Supreme Court Rule 41 to

answer the following questions:

(1) Whether, under Article I, § 20 of the Delaware Constitution, a public housing 

agency such as the WHA may adopt a policy prohibiting its residents, 

household members, and guests from displaying or carrying a firearm or other 

 

1

 Appellants also argued, and the District Court disagreed, that state law 

preempted the WHA’s actions and that the WHA acted outside of the scope of its 

authority. Appellants appealed those conclusions. We expressly declined to certify those 

issues to the Delaware Supreme Court and need not consider them in light of the 

Delaware Supreme Court’s answer to the certified questions.
4

weapon in a common area, except when the firearm or other weapon is being 

transported to or from a resident’s housing unit or is being used in self-defense.

(2) Whether, under Article I, § 20 of the Delaware Constitution, a public housing 

agency such as the WHA may require its residents, household members, and 

guests to have available for inspection a copy of any permit, license, or other 

documentation required by state, local, or federal law for the ownership, 

possession, or transportation of any firearm or other weapon, including a 

license to carry a concealed weapon, as required by 11 Del. C. § 1441, on 

request, when there is reasonable cause to believe that the law or policies have 

been violated. 

On July 30, 2013, the Delaware Supreme Court accepted certification of these

questions. After considering the parties’ briefs and arguments, on March 18, 2014, the 

Court issued an opinion answering both questions in the negative. Doe v. Wilmington 

Hous. Auth., 88 A.3d 654 (Del. 2014). 

The Delaware Supreme Court held that the interpretation of Article I, Section 20 

did not depend on the Second Amendment; that, under Delaware law, the right to bear 

arms was not absolute; and that an intermediate-scrutiny analysis applied, allowing a 

court “to consider public safety and other important governmental interests.” Id. at 667. 

Applying intermediate scrutiny, the Delaware Supreme Court held that the Common Area 

Provision “burden[ed] the right to bear arms more than is reasonably necessary” and that 

the Reasonable Cause Provision that enforced the Common Area Provision was also 

overbroad. Id. at 668–69. As a result, these provisions were unconstitutional under 

Article I, Section 20. Id. at 670.

We adopt the Delaware Supreme Court’s opinion in Doe v. Wilmington Hous.

Auth., 88 A.3d 654 (Del. 2014). We will reverse and remand the District Court’s 
5

judgment under the Delaware Constitution for entry of judgment consistent with the 

guidance that the Delaware Supreme Court has provided.