Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

22 

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. 
CITY OF NEW YORK 
ALITO, J., dissenting 

civil rights laws through civil litigation, even if they “ ‘can-
not afford legal counsel.’ ”  Id., at 635–636. 

Here,  the  City  fought  petitioners  tooth  and  nail  in  the 
District Court and the Court of Appeals, insisting that its 
old  ordinance  served  important  public  safety  purposes.
When petitioners sought review in this Court, the City op-
posed certiorari on the same ground.  But once we granted
review, the City essentially attempted to impose a unilat-
eral settlement that deprived petitioners of attorney’s fees. 
And those fees would likely be substantial.  They would re-
flect five years of intensive litigation—everything from the 
drafting of the complaint, through multiple rounds of Dis-
trict  Court  motion  practice,  to  appellate  review,  and  pro-
ceedings in this Court. 

III
  The per curiam provides no sound reason for holding that 
this case is moot.  The per curiam states that the City’s cur-
rent  rule  gave  petitioners  “the  precise  relief  [they]  re-
quested” in their prayer for relief, ante, at 1, but that is not 
so.  Petitioners’ prayer for relief asks the court to enjoin 38 
N. Y. C. R. R. §5–23 insofar as it “prohibit[s]” travel outside
the City to ranges, competitions, and second homes.  App.
48.  The  new  rule’s  conditions  unmistakably  continue  to 
prohibit some travel outside the City to those destinations.
For  this  reason,  petitioners  have  not  obtained  the  “unre-
stricted access” that, they have always maintained, the Sec-
ond  Amendment  guarantees.  Id.,  at  36.  The  per  curiam
implies that the current rule, as interpreted at oral argu-
ment by counsel for the City, gives petitioners everything
that they now seek, ante, at 1, but that also is not true.  Pe-
titioners  still  claim  the  right  to  “unrestricted  access”  and 
counsel’s off-the-cuff concessions do not give them that.11 

—————— 

11 The City’s enforcement position as to “coffee, gas, food, or restroom 
breaks” by no means resolves the meaning of §5–23.  The City’s counsel 
informed  the  Court  that  those  stops  are  permissible  because  they  are