Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2021 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, 
INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW 
YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

No. 20–843.  Argued November 3, 2021—Decided June 23, 2022 

The State of New York makes it a crime to possess a firearm without a 
license, whether inside or outside the home.  An individual who wants 
to carry a firearm outside his home may obtain an unrestricted license 
to “have and carry” a concealed “pistol or revolver” if he can prove that
“proper cause exists” for doing so.  N. Y. Penal Law Ann. §400.00(2)(f ).
An  applicant  satisfies  the  “proper  cause”  requirement  only  if  he  can
“demonstrate  a  special  need  for  self-protection  distinguishable  from
that of the general community.”  E.g., In re Klenosky, 75 App. Div. 2d 
793, 428 N. Y. S. 2d 256, 257. 

Petitioners Brandon Koch and Robert Nash are adult, law-abiding
New York residents who both applied for unrestricted licenses to carry
a handgun in public based on their generalized interest in self-defense. 
The State denied both of their applications for unrestricted licenses,
allegedly because Koch and Nash failed to satisfy the “proper cause” 
requirement.  Petitioners then sued respondents—state officials who 
oversee the processing of licensing applications—for declaratory and 
injunctive relief, alleging that respondents violated their Second and
Fourteenth  Amendment  rights  by  denying  their  unrestricted-license 
applications for failure to demonstrate a unique need for self-defense.
The District Court dismissed petitioners’ complaint and the Court of
Appeals affirmed.  Both courts relied on the Second Circuit’s prior de-
cision in Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81, which had 
sustained New York’s proper-cause standard, holding that the require-
ment  was  “substantially  related  to  the  achievement  of an  important 
governmental interest.”  Id., at 96.