Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Page Number: 97.0

14  NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

discovery,  and  no  evidentiary  hearings  have  been  held  to 
develop  the  record.  See  App.  15–26.  Thus, at  this  point,
there is no record to support the  Court’s negative charac-
terizations, as we know very little about how the law has 
actually been applied on the ground.

Consider each of the Court’s criticisms in turn.  First, the 
Court says that New York gives licensing officers too much 
discretion and “leaves applicants little recourse if their local
licensing officer denies a permit.”  Ante, at 4.  But there is 
nothing unusual about broad statutory language that can 
be  given  more  specific  content  by  judicial  interpretation. 
Nor is there anything unusual or inadequate about subject-
ing licensing officers’ decisions to arbitrary-and-capricious 
review.  Judges routinely apply that standard, for example,
to determine whether an agency action is lawful under both
New York law and the Administrative Procedure Act.  See, 
e.g., N. Y. Civ. Prac.  Law Ann. §7803(3) (2021); 5 U. S. C.
§706(2)(A).  The  arbitrary-and-capricious  standard  has 
thus  been  used  to  review  important  policies  concerning
health, safety, and immigration, to name just a few exam-
ples.  See, e.g., Biden v. Missouri, 595 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) 
(per curiam) (slip op., at 8); Department of Homeland Secu-
rity v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 591 U. S. ___, ___, ___ (2020) 
(slip op., at 9, 17); Department of Commerce v. New York, 
588 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 16); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. 
Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile 
Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29, 41, 46 (1983).

Without an evidentiary record, there is no reason to as-
sume that New York courts applying this standard fail to 
provide  license  applicants  with  meaningful  review.  And 
there  is  no  evidentiary  record  to  support  the  Court’s  as-
sumption  here.  Based  on  the  pleadings  alone,  we  cannot 
know how often New York courts find the denial of a con-
cealed-carry  license  to  be  arbitrary  and  capricious  or  on 
what basis.  We do not even know how a court would have 
reviewed  the  licensing  officer’s  decisions  in  Koch’s  and