Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf
Page Number: 34.0

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

31 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

any serious form of scrutiny would have questioned the ab-
sence of evidence, but no substantiation was provided or de-
manded below. 

In  sum,  the  City’s  travel  restriction  burdened  the  very
right recognized in Heller.  History provides no support for 
a  restriction  of  this  type.    The  City’s  public  safety  argu-
ments were weak on their face, were not substantiated in 
any way, and were accepted below with no serious probing.
And once we granted review in this case, the City’s public
safety concerns evaporated.

We are told that the mode of review in this case is repre-
sentative  of  the  way  Heller  has  been  treated  in  the  lower 
courts.  If that is true, there is cause for concern. 

* 

* 

* 
This case is not moot.  The City violated petitioners’ Sec-
ond Amendment right, and we should so hold.  I would re-
verse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the
case  to  the  District  Court  to  provide  appropriate  relief.   I 
therefore respectfully dissent.