Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Page Number: 13

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

road  back  country,  outdoor  activities  similar  to  hunting,” 
such as “fishing, hiking & camping etc.”  App. 41.  But, at 
the same time, the officer emphasized that the restrictions 
were “intended to prohibit [Nash] from carrying concealed 
in ANY LOCATION typically open to and frequented by the 
general public.”  Ibid. 

Between 2008 and 2017, Koch was in the same position
as  Nash:  He  faced  no special  dangers,  wanted  a  handgun 
for  general  self-defense,  and  had  only  a  restricted  license 
permitting  him  to  carry  a  handgun  outside  the  home  for 
hunting and target shooting.  In late 2017, Koch applied to
a licensing officer to remove the restrictions on his license, 
citing his extensive experience in safely handling firearms.
Like Nash’s application, Koch’s was denied, except that the 
officer permitted Koch to “carry to and from work.”  Id., at 
114. 

C 

Respondents  are  the  superintendent  of  the  New  York 
State  Police,  who  oversees  the  enforcement  of  the  State’s 
licensing laws, and a New York Supreme Court justice, who 
oversees the processing of licensing applications in Rensse-
laer County.  Petitioners sued respondents for declaratory 
and  injunctive  relief  under  Rev.  Stat.  1979,  42  U. S. C. 
§1983, alleging that respondents violated their Second and 
Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying their unrestricted-
license  applications  on  the  basis  that  they  had  failed  to
show  “proper  cause,”  i.e.,  had  failed  to  demonstrate  a 
unique need for self-defense.

The District Court dismissed petitioners’ complaint and
the Court of Appeals affirmed.  See 818 Fed. Appx. 99, 100 
(CA2  2020).  Both  courts  relied  on  the  Court  of  Appeals’ 
prior  decision  in  Kachalsky,  701  F. 3d  81,  which  had  sus-
tained New York’s proper-cause standard, holding that the
requirement was “substantially related to the achievement
of an important governmental interest.”  Id., at 96.