Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Page Number: 96.0

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

13 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

broad,  but  there  is  “a  substantial  body  of  law  instructing 
licensing officials on the application of this standard.”  Id., 
at 86.  New York courts have interpreted proper cause “to
include carrying a handgun for target practice, hunting, or 
self-defense.”  Ibid.  When an applicant seeks a license for 
target practice or hunting, he must show “ ‘a sincere desire
to participate in target shooting and hunting.’ ”  Ibid. (quot-
ing In re O’Connor, 154 Misc. 2d 694, 697, 585 N. Y. S. 2d 
1000,  1003  (Westchester  Cty.  1992)).  When  an  applicant
seeks  a  license  for  self-defense,  he  must  show  “ ‘a  special 
need  for  self-protection  distinguishable  from  that  of  the
general  community.’ ”    701  F. 3d,  at  86  (quoting  In re 
Klenosky, 75 App. Div. 2d 793, 793, 428 N. Y. S. 2d 256, 257 
(1980)).  Whether  an  applicant  meets  these  proper  cause 
standards is determined in the first instance by a “licensing 
officer in the city or county . . . where the applicant resides.”
§400.00(3).  In most counties, the licensing officer is a local 
judge.  Kachalsky, 701 F. 3d, at 87, n. 6.  For example, in
Rensselaer  County,  the  licensing  officer  who  denied  peti-
tioners’ requests to remove the restrictions on their licenses 
was a justice of the New York Supreme Court.  App. 31.  If 
the officer denies an application, the applicant can obtain
judicial review under Article 78 of New York’s Civil Practice
Law  and  Rules.    Kachalsky,  701  F. 3d,  at  87.    New  York 
courts  will  then  review  whether  the  denial  was  arbitrary 
and capricious.  Ibid. 

In describing New York’s law, the Court recites the above
facts but adds its own gloss.  It suggests that New York’s
licensing regime gives licensing officers too much discretion 
and provides too “limited” judicial review of their decisions, 
ante, at 4; that the proper cause standard is too “demand-
ing,” ante, at 3; and that these features make New York an 
outlier compared to the “vast majority of States,” ante, at 4. 
But on what evidence does the Court base these character-
izations?  Recall that this case comes to us at the pleading 
stage.  The parties have not had an opportunity to conduct