Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Page Number: 98.0

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

15 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

Nash’s cases because they do not appear to have sought ju-
dicial review at all.  See Brief for Respondents 13; App. 122– 
126. 

Second, the Court characterizes New York’s proper cause 
standard as substantively “demanding.”  Ante, at 3.  But, 
again,  the  Court  has  before  it  no  evidentiary  record  to 
demonstrate how the standard has actually been applied.
How “demanding” is the proper cause standard in practice? 
Does that answer differ from county to county?  How many
license applications are granted and denied each year?  At 
the  pleading  stage,  we  do  not  know  the  answers  to  these 
and other important questions, so the Court’s characteriza-
tion of New York’s law may very well be wrong. 

In support of its assertion that the law is “demanding,”
the Court cites only to cases originating in New York City. 
Ibid.  (citing  In  re  Martinek,  294  App.  Div.  2d  221,  743 
N. Y. S. 2d 80 (2002) (New York County, i.e., Manhattan); 
In  re  Kaplan,  249  App.  Div.  2d  199,  673  N. Y. S.  2d  66
(1998)  (same);  In  re  Klenosky,  75  App.  Div.  2d  793,  428 
N. Y. S. 2d 256 (same); In re Bernstein, 85 App. Div. 2d 574, 
445 N. Y. S. 2d 716 (1981) (Bronx County)).  But cases from 
New  York  City  may  not  accurately  represent  how  the 
proper cause standard is applied in other parts of the State, 
including in Rensselaer County where petitioners reside.

To the contrary, amici tell us that New York’s licensing
regime is purposefully flexible: It allows counties and cities 
to  respond  to  the  particular  needs  and  challenges  of  each 
area.  See  Brief  for  American  Bar  Association  as  Amicus 
Curiae 12; Brief for City of New York as Amicus Curiae 20– 
29.  Amici  suggest  that  some  areas  may  interpret  words 
such  as  “proper  cause”  or  “special  need”  more  or  less 
strictly, depending upon each area’s unique circumstances.
See ibid.  New York City, for example, reports that it “has
applied  the  [proper  cause]  requirement  relatively  rigor-
ously”  because  its  densely  populated  urban  areas  pose  a 
heightened risk of gun violence.  Brief for City of New York