Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf
Page Number: 5

2 

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

firing ranges in the City, all but one of which were largely 
restricted to members and their guests. 

In the District Court and the Court of Appeals, the City
vigorously  and  successfully  defended  the  constitutionality 
of its ordinance, and the law was upheld based on what we 
are told is the framework for reviewing Second Amendment 
claims  that  has  been  uniformly  adopted  by  the  Courts  of 
Appeals.1  One  might  have  thought  that  the  City,  having
convinced the lower courts that its law was consistent with 
Heller, would have been willing to defend its victory in this 
Court.  But once we granted certiorari, both the City and 
the State of New York sprang into action to prevent us from
deciding  this  case.    Although  the  City  had  previously  in-
sisted  that  its  ordinance  served  important  public  safety 
purposes, our grant of review apparently led to an epiphany 
of sorts, and the City quickly changed its ordinance.  And 
for good measure the State enacted a law making the old 
New York City ordinance illegal.

Thereafter,  the  City  and  amici  supporting  its  position
strove to have this case thrown out without briefing or ar-
gument.  The City moved for dismissal “as soon as is rea-
sonably practicable” on the ground that it had “no legal rea-
son  to  file  a  brief.”    Suggestion  of  Mootness  1.    When  we 
refused to jettison the case at that early stage, the City sub-
mitted a brief but “stress[ed] that [its] true position [was]
that  it  ha[d]  no  view  at  all  regarding  the  constitutional 
questions presented” and that it was “offer[ing] a defense of 
the  . . .  former  rul[e]  in  the  spirit  of  something  a  Court-
appointed amicus curiae might do.”  Brief for Respondents 2.
A prominent brief supporting the City went further.  Five 
United States Senators, four of whom are members of the 
bar of this Court, filed a brief insisting that the case be dis-

—————— 

1 See  Brief  for  Second  Amendment  Law  Professors  et  al.  as  Amici 

Curiae 8–9.