Court Opinion

ID: 9939330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 20:01:12.514735+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:56.424163
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13444     Document: 45-1       Date Filed: 02/09/2024   Page: 1 of 22

                                                                [PUBLISH]
                                      In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                          For the Eleventh Circuit

                            ____________________

                                   No. 22-13444
                            ____________________

        CHRISTOPHER BAUGHCUM, JR.,
        ZANE MEYERS,
        SOPHIE LONG,
        FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, INC.,
                                                       Plaintiﬀs-Appellants,
        versus
        GENOLA JACKSON,
        in her individual capacity and in her oﬃcial capacity
        as Judge of the Laurens County Probate Court,
        JANICE D. SPIRES,
        in her individual capacity and in her oﬃcial capacity
        as Judge of the Houston County Probate Court,
        KATHRYN B. MARTIN,
        in her individual capacity and in her oﬃcial capacity
        as Judge of the Lamar County Probate Court,
USCA11 Case: 22-13444     Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 02/09/2024    Page: 2 of 22

        2                     Opinion of the Court                22-13444

        WILLIAM HITCHENS,
        in his oﬃcial capacity
        as Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety,
        CHRIS WRIGHT,
        in his individual capacity,
                                                     Defendants-Appellees.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Georgia
                   D.C. Docket No. 3:21-cv-00036-DHB-BKE
                           ____________________

        Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
        BRASHER, Circuit Judge:
               The question in this appeal is whether three young Geor-
        gians and the Firearms Policy Coalition can sue Georgia’s Commis-
        sioner of Public Safety and several probate judges over the consti-
        tutionality of a state gun law. The three individual plaintiffs want
        to carry firearms, but the state won’t let them until they are
        twenty-one years old. With help from the FPC, they sued three
        county probate judges (who issue carry licenses) and Georgia’s
        Commissioner of Public Safety (who designs the carry license ap-
        plication form). The district court concluded that they lacked
        standing to sue any of the defendants and that the case was both
        moot and unripe.
USCA11 Case: 22-13444       Document: 45-1       Date Filed: 02/09/2024     Page: 3 of 22

        22-13444                Opinion of the Court                           3

               We believe the district court partially erred. Although no
        plaintiff has standing to sue the Commissioner, the plaintiffs do
        have standing to sue the judges. And the case is neither moot nor
        unripe for the gun rights group and at least one of the individual
        plaintiffs. In short, this case is justiciable. So we reverse in part and
        remand for the district court to consider the merits.
                                        I.

               The FPC is an advocacy group that is “dedicated to promot-
        ing the right to keep and bear arms.” Its membership includes three
        Georgians: Christopher Baughcum, Zane Meyers, and Sophie
        Long. When they filed suit, all three were at least eighteen and un-
        der twenty-one. But only Baughcum remains under twenty-one.
               All three individual plaintiffs allege that they want to carry
        guns because they regularly face dangerous situations—from
        working in high crime areas, to traveling with valuable equipment
        in public areas alone, to running errands in high crime areas where
        a plaintiff has faced harassment. But none has applied for a carry
        license in Georgia.
               When the plaintiffs filed suit, Georgia’s weapons carry li-
        censing regime was fairly straightforward. The state required peo-
        ple to obtain licenses to carry weapons, Ga. Code § 16-11-126(h)(1)
        (2021), and forbade those under twenty-one from obtaining li-
        censes unless they were active duty or honorably discharged mem-
        bers of the military, Ga. Code § 16-11-129(b)(2), which the three
        individual plaintiffs here are not. Since then, Georgia’s licensing re-
        quirements have changed. Now, the state no longer requires
USCA11 Case: 22-13444       Document: 45-1       Date Filed: 02/09/2024      Page: 4 of 22

        4                       Opinion of the Court                    22-13444

        people to obtain licenses to carry weapons, so long as they are oth-
        erwise eligible for a license. Id. § 16-11-126(g)(1); id. § 16-11-
        125.1(2.1). But Georgia did not lift the bar on adults under the age
        of twenty-one obtaining a license.
               Some other important things also stayed the same across
        both licensing regimes. County probate judges issue the licenses,
        while Georgia’s Commissioner of Public Safety designs and fur-
        nishes the blank application forms that the judges process. Id. § 16-
        11-129(a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C)(iii). The Commissioner has a minimal
        role in enforcing the criminal aspects of the law—he primarily
        oversees Georgia’s highway patrol. The officers under his com-
        mand are prohibited by statute from detaining people solely to in-
        vestigate whether they are unlawfully carrying firearms. Id. § 16-
        11-137.
               The plaintiffs say that the age restrictions on carry licenses
        prevent them from exercising their Second Amendment rights. So
        they brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the deprivation of their
        constitutional rights. Specifically, they sued three probate judges in
        the counties where the individual plaintiffs live and the Commis-
        sioner for a declaration that the age restriction is unconstitutional
        and an injunction against its enforcement, along with costs, fees,
        and expenses. This legal theory is not novel. See Lara v. Comm’r, Pa.
        State Police, No. 21-1832, slip op. at 3–4 (3d. Cir. Jan. 18, 2024) (hold-
        ing that a state ban on 18 to 20-year-olds carrying firearms outside
        the home is unconstitutional).
USCA11 Case: 22-13444       Document: 45-1        Date Filed: 02/09/2024      Page: 5 of 22

        22-13444                 Opinion of the Court                            5

               But the district court concluded that the FPC and its three
        members lacked standing against the judges and the Commissioner
        because the members did not actually apply for and get denied any
        licenses. The district court also concluded that the suit was moot
        because the licensing regime change meant nobody needed li-
        censes to carry weapons. And the court concluded that the suit was
        unripe, again because the members did not apply for and get denied
        licenses. The district court did not reach the merits of the chal-
        lenge—whether the age restrictions to carry weapons violate the
        Second Amendment.
               This appeal followed. During this appeal, Chris Wright re-
        tired as Georgia’s Commissioner of Public Safety and was replaced
        by William Hitchens in all the official-capacity claims against the
        Commissioner.
                                         II.

               We review the dismissal of a complaint for lack of jurisdic-
        tion de novo, see Glynn Env’t Coal., Inc. v. Sea Island Acquisition, LLC,
        26 F.4th 1235, 1240 (11th Cir. 2022), including for lack of standing,
        see Scott v. Taylor, 470 F.3d 1014, 1017 (11th Cir. 2006), mootness,
        see Hall v. Sec’y, Alabama, 902 F.3d 1294, 1297 (11th Cir. 2018), and
        lack of ripeness, see Temple B’Nai Zion, Inc. v. City of Sunny Isles Beach,
        727 F.3d 1349, 1356 (11th Cir. 2013).
                                         III.

               The judicial power of the United States extends only to ac-
        tual cases and controversies. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 337
USCA11 Case: 22-13444      Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 02/09/2024      Page: 6 of 22

        6                      Opinion of the Court                  22-13444

        (2016) (citing U.S. Const. art. III). This case-and-controversy re-
        quirement demands we can hear only justiciable matters, to prevent
        us from “encroaching on the powers of the other branches of gov-
        ernment” or deciding matters outside the “adversarial context.” So-
        cialist Workers Party v. Leahy, 145 F.3d 1240, 1244 (11th Cir. 1998).
        Though there are many related doctrines, a justiciability inquiry is
        typically “composed of ‘three strands’: standing, ripeness, and
        mootness.” Strickland v. Alexander, 772 F.3d 876, 883 (11th Cir.
        2014) (quoting Leahy, 145 F.3d at 1244). “The failure of any one of
        these strands can deprive a federal court of jurisdiction.” Id.
                Here, all three strands of justiciability are contested. First,
        the Commissioner and the probate judges argue that the plaintiffs
        lack standing to sue them. They argue that they cannot provide
        relief to the plaintiffs because the Commissioner does not grant li-
        censes and the probate judges are immune. And the probate judges
        argue that the plaintiffs were never injured because they never ap-
        plied for weapons carry licenses. Second, because the plaintiffs
        never applied, the probate judges argue and the district court con-
        cluded that the case is not ripe. Third, the probate judges argue and
        the district court concluded that the case is moot because now
        Georgia does not require that people have licenses to carry weap-
        ons, so long as they are eligible for licenses. Finally, another moot-
        ness issue has arisen while the case has been pending on appeal:
        two of the individual plaintiffs have reached the age of twenty-one
        and are now eligible for a license under Georgia law. We will ad-
        dress each of these strands of justiciability in turn.
USCA11 Case: 22-13444      Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 02/09/2024      Page: 7 of 22

        22-13444               Opinion of the Court                          7

                                       A.

               We will start with standing. Courts have jurisdiction to hear
        a case only when the plaintiff has standing to sue. See Lujan v. Defs.
        of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). To have standing, an individual
        plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact, fairly traceable to the
        defendant, that the court can redress with an order directed at the
        defendant. Id. at 560–61. The individual plaintiffs here, Baughcum,
        Meyers, and Long, argue that they have been injured by the de-
        fendants’ enforcement of Georgia’s allegedly unconstitutional gun
        permitting law because it has prevented them from carrying weap-
        ons for their own protection.
               Organizations, like individuals, may have standing to sue on
        their own behalf, but organizations may also have associational
        standing to sue on behalf of their members. The FPC argues that it
        has associational standing to bring the claims in this lawsuit. To
        benefit from associational standing, the FPC must establish three
        elements: the FPC’s members must otherwise have standing to
        sue, the interests the lawsuit seeks to protect must be germane to
        the FPC’s purpose, and the claim can be resolved and the requested
        relief granted without the participation of individual members.
        Dream Defs. v. Governor of Fla., 57 F.4th 879, 886 (11th Cir. 2023).
               Two of the three elements for organizational standing are
        undisputed, and rightfully so. The interests at stake in this law-
        suit—Second Amendment rights—are germane to the FPC’s pur-
        pose as an organization. And the suit—a facial Second Amendment
        challenge seeking an injunction against the enforcement of a state
USCA11 Case: 22-13444      Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 02/09/2024      Page: 8 of 22

        8                      Opinion of the Court                  22-13444

        law—does not require the FPC’s individual members to partici-
        pate.
               The only disputed question is whether the FPC has mem-
        bers that would otherwise have standing, such as the individual
        plaintiffs, to sue on their own behalf. Thus, for both the FPC’s as-
        sociational standing and the standing of its three individual mem-
        bers, the question turns on whether the individual members suf-
        fered an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the defendant and
        that can be redressed by a court’s order directed at the defendant.
        Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. We believe they have.
                                          1.

              The plaintiffs argue that they have been injured, and will
        continue to be injured, by the threat of enforcement of an arguably
        unconstitutional law. We agree.
                An injury in fact must be concrete and particularized and ac-
        tual or imminent, rather than conjectural or hypothetical. Lujan,
        504 U.S. at 560. A concrete injury is one that “actually exist[s]” and
        is “real” rather than “abstract.” Spokeo, 578 U.S. at 340 (citations
        omitted). A particularized injury is one that “affect[s] the plaintiff
        in a personal and individual way.” Id. at 339 (citation omitted). An
        actual or imminent injury, unlike a conjectural or hypothetical one,
        is one which has occurred, is certainly impending, or has substan-
        tial risk of occurring. See Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S.
        149, 158 (2014). “A plaintiff satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement
        where he alleges an intention to engage in a course of conduct ar-
        guably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a
USCA11 Case: 22-13444       Document: 45-1       Date Filed: 02/09/2024      Page: 9 of 22

        22-13444                Opinion of the Court                            9

        statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereun-
        der.” Id. at 159 (cleaned up).
                At the time this suit was filed, all three individual plaintiffs
        satisfied the injury-in-fact requirement. They each alleged that they
        intended to carry weapons, implicating Second Amendment inter-
        ests. But they were proscribed from carrying weapons by Georgia
        law. The relevant statute says that “no person shall carry a weapon
        unless he or she is a lawful weapons carrier.” Ga. Code § 16-11-
        126(g)(1). A “lawful weapons carrier” is “any person who is licensed
        or eligible for a license . . . .” Id. § 16-11-125.1(2.1). A person is not
        eligible for a license if he is under twenty-one, unless he is at least
        eighteen and either an active duty or honorably discharged mem-
        ber of the military. Id. § 16-11-129(b)(2)(A). The individual plaintiffs
        were not licensed to carry weapons. Nor were they eligible for li-
        censes. They were each under twenty-one at the time of suit, and
        none had served in the military.
               And, of course, there exists a credible threat of prosecution.
        Georgia prohibits unlicensed (or, now, ineligible) carrying of weap-
        ons. Even cursory research shows Georgia’s history of enforcing
        this law. See Watkins v. State, 695 S.E.2d 394, 396–97 (Ga. Ct. App.
        2010); Jordan v. State, 304 S.E.2d 522, 523–24 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983);
        Asberry v. State, 234 S.E.2d 847, 848 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977). We can
        expect that, if the plaintiffs violate the law and carry a weapon
        when they are not eligible for a weapons carry license, they will
        face legal consequences. Being forced to choose between suffering
USCA11 Case: 22-13444      Document: 45-1       Date Filed: 02/09/2024     Page: 10 of 22

        10                      Opinion of the Court                  22-13444

        criminal punishment or giving up a constitutional right is an injury
        in fact.
                                           2.

                 The defendants argue that, even if the individual plaintiffs
        have suffered a cognizable injury, the defendants are not responsi-
        ble for it and cannot fix it. That is, they say that they have so little
        to do with the enforcement or administration of Georgia’s firearm
        laws that the injuries are not fairly traceable to them and are not
        redressable by any court order against them. With respect to the
        probate judges, we disagree. We conclude that the individual plain-
        tiffs’ injuries are fairly traceable to and redressable by an order di-
        rected to the probate judges. But we agree that the Commissioner
        is too far removed from Georgia’s gun laws to be subject to this
        suit.
               An injury is fairly traceable to the defendant if it results from
        the defendant’s action and is not the result of an independent action
        of some third party. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. Likewise, an injury can
        be redressed by the court when a decision for the plaintiff would
        make it significantly more likely that he would obtain relief that
        directly remedies his injury. Lewis v. Governor of Ala., 944 F.3d 1287,
        1301 (11th Cir. 2019). And it must be the effect of the court’s judg-
        ment on the defendant, rather than some third party, that redresses
        the injury, whether directly or indirectly. Id.
               The plaintiffs’ injuries are fairly traceable to the probate
        judges and redressable by an order directed to them. The plaintiffs
        challenge the inability of those under twenty-one to obtain
USCA11 Case: 22-13444      Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 02/09/2024     Page: 11 of 22

        22-13444               Opinion of the Court                         11

        licenses. Probate judges are responsible for granting and denying
        licenses. The individual plaintiffs have sued the probate judges in
        their respective counties, who are responsible for issuing licenses
        to them. So the injury is traceable to those probate judges. See Ga.
        Latino All. for Hum. Rts. v. Governor of Ga., 691 F.3d 1250, 1260 & n.5
        (11th Cir. 2012); Luckey v. Harris, 860 F.2d 1012, 1015 (11th Cir.
        1988). And because the probate judges are responsible for issuing
        licenses, the challenged action is also redressable by a court order
        against them. The district court could, if the suit is ultimately mer-
        itorious, order the probate judges to issue licenses to the plaintiffs
        and the FPC’s similarly situated members despite the age limits in
        state law.
                For their part, the probate judges argue that a federal court
        cannot redress the plaintiffs’ injuries with an injunction against
        them because 42 U.S.C. § 1983 generally forbids an injunction
        against “a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such of-
        ficer’s judicial capacity.” They reason that, to the extent issuing a
        carry license is a judicial function, any order the district court en-
        tered against them could not legally redress the plaintiffs’ injuries
        because the judges would be immune.
               We disagree that the probate judges are acting in a judicial
        capacity when issuing these carry licenses. Probate judges in Geor-
        gia are explicitly tasked with “judicial and ministerial functions as
        may be provided by law,” including “[p]erform[ing] county gov-
        ernmental administration duties,” “[r]egister[ing] and permit[ting]
        certain enterprises,” and “[i]ssu[ing] marriage licenses.” Ga. Code
USCA11 Case: 22-13444      Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 02/09/2024     Page: 12 of 22

        12                     Opinion of the Court                  22-13444

        § 15-9-30(b). To determine whether a probate judge is exercising a
        judicial or nonjudicial function, we must consult the relevant state
        law for signs of judicial discretion. See Perkins v. U.S. Fid. & Guar.
        Co., 433 F.2d 1303, 1304–05 (5th Cir. 1970).
                Georgia’s law is pellucid. The Georgia Supreme Court has
        expressly held that “processing a weapons carry license does not
        involve the exercise of judicial power.” Roberts v. Cuthpert, 893
        S.E.2d 73, 76, 82–84 (Ga. 2023). It is, instead, a ministerial function
        that the legislature happened to assign to these judges. See id. at 82
        (“Not by [a probate judge’s] title, but only by his acts, can the exact
        capacity in which he appears ever be known upon any special oc-
        casion.”(quoting Comer v. Ross, 28 S.E. 387, 387 (Ga. 1897))); see also
        id. (citing Ga. Code § 15-9-30(b)). After all, the statute offers pro-
        bate judges nothing in the way of discretion. If a person meets the
        statutorily defined criteria, he gets a license. If not, he doesn’t.
        When issuing these licenses, the probate judges act more like a mu-
        nicipal clerk than a judicial decisionmaker.
               Moving on to the Commissioner: the plaintiffs’ injuries are
        not fairly traceable to him and not redressable by a court order
        against him. An injury must be traceable to the defendant and re-
        dressable by a court order against the defendant, not a third party.
        Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560; Lewis, 944 F.3d at 1301. But the Commis-
        sioner is not responsible for issuing licenses nor could he issue them
        to the plaintiffs if ordered. As we just explained above, licensing
        authority lies with the probate judges.
USCA11 Case: 22-13444      Document: 45-1       Date Filed: 02/09/2024       Page: 13 of 22

        22-13444                Opinion of the Court                           13

            Undeterred, the plaintiffs offer two theories against the
        Commissioner. Neither works.
               The plaintiffs first argue that their injuries are fairly traceable
        to and redressable by a court order against the Commissioner be-
        cause of his statutory responsibility for designing the license appli-
        cation form, which lists the age requirements. Our precedent fore-
        closes that theory. In Jacobson v. Florida Secretary of State, we exam-
        ined a law requiring ballots to first list candidates belonging to the
        party of the last gubernatorial victor and then list the candidate
        from the second-place party. 974 F.3d 1236, 1241 (11th Cir. 2020).
        County supervisors were responsible for placing candidates in the
        correct order, while the Secretary of State was to certify the nomi-
        nees. Id. at 1253. The Democrats (the second-place party) lacked
        standing to sue the Secretary, in part because their injury (consist-
        ently being listed second) was not traceable to her role in certifying
        the candidates but rather the local county supervisors’ role in plac-
        ing them second. Id. Likewise, the injuries at issue here (not being
        given licenses) are not traceable to the Commissioner’s decisions
        about how to design the form, but rather the probate judges’ deci-
        sions regarding licensure applications.
               The plaintiffs argue otherwise, saying that unlike the Secre-
        tary in Jacobson, the Commissioner here does directly design the rel-
        evant document that the probate judges process. But they are miss-
        ing the central point. Their claimed injury isn’t a bad form, but ra-
        ther the restriction of licenses based on age itself. They cannot say
        that the Commissioner’s form causes, even indirectly, the probate
USCA11 Case: 22-13444      Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 02/09/2024     Page: 14 of 22

        14                     Opinion of the Court                  22-13444

        judges to deny licenses. There is no reason to think that the probate
        judges enforce the age restriction because of the form’s design, ra-
        ther than their legal obligation under the statute. His control over
        the form does not give the Commissioner the power to make the
        probate judges license the plaintiffs.
                The Commissioner’s lack of authority over the probate
        judges distinguishes this case from out-of-circuit precedents that
        suggest a plaintiff may have standing against a statewide defendant
        who designs forms that local decisionmakers use to injure the
        plaintiff. See Tex. Democratic Party v. Abbott, 978 F.3d 168, 179–80
        (5th Cir. 2020); Henne v. Wright, 904 F.2d 1208, 1210–11 (8th Cir.
        1990). In those cases, unlike this one, the statewide defendant cre-
        ated outcome-determinative forms. The forms in both cases con-
        strained the local decisionmakers—they were required to use the
        challenged forms and their only responsibilities were to ensure that
        the forms were accurately completed. Here, on the other hand, the
        probate judges are independently charged with investigating any
        applicant’s compliance with the criteria for a license set forth in the
        statute and then issuing a license when an applicant meets those
        criteria. Ga. Code § 16-11-129(b), (d).
              Let us now move to the plaintiffs’ second theory of standing
        against the Commissioner. They argue that the Commissioner is
        the head of the Georgia State Patrol, a law enforcement agency that
        could arrest the plaintiffs for carrying without a license, and that
        the Commissioner could be ordered by a court to refrain from
        making such arrests. In support of that argument, they cite Lara, in
USCA11 Case: 22-13444        Document: 45-1         Date Filed: 02/09/2024        Page: 15 of 22

        22-13444                  Opinion of the Court                               15

        which the Third Circuit recently held that similar plaintiffs, includ-
        ing the FPC, had standing to sue the Commissioner of the Pennsyl-
        vania State Police over a similar state law. See No. 21-1832, slip op.
        at 32–35.
               We disagree. Remember, the injury must be “likely, not
        merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable
        decision” against the defendant. 31 Foster Child. v. Bush, 329 F.3d
        1255, 1263 (11th Cir. 2003). Two aspects of Georgia law make it
        unlikely that the Commissioner would be responsible for enforcing
        this law and thus highly speculative that any judgment against the
        Commissioner would redress the plaintiffs’ injuries. First, unlike
        the Commissioner in Lara, the Commissioner here is not tasked
        with general law enforcement, but highway patrol in particular.1
        Second, Georgia law prohibits officers from detaining people solely
        to investigate whether they are lawful weapons carriers. Ga. Code
        § 16-11-137.
               So, for the plaintiffs’ injury to be traceable to and redressable
        by the Commissioner, a series of speculative events would need to

        1 Compare Duties of a Trooper, PA Trooper, https://www.patrooper.com/du-

        ties-of-a-trooper.html [https://perma.cc/DGF8-ELGW] (explaining that
        “The Pennsylvania State Police is a full service agency. . . . PA State Troopers
        provide primary police coverage . . . for over 60% of the Commonwealth’s
        municipalities”), with About the Georgia State Patrol, Georgia Department of
        Public Safety, https://dps.georgia.gov/divisions/georgia-state-patrol/about-
        georgia-state-patrol [https://perma.cc/T587-TNT6] (noting that the Patrol
        “focuse[s] primarily on the enforcement of traffic laws and investigation of
        traffic crashes,” though it additionally supports other law enforcement agen-
        cies in their efforts).
USCA11 Case: 22-13444     Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 02/09/2024    Page: 16 of 22

        16                     Opinion of the Court                22-13444

        occur. First, the plaintiffs would need to be carrying weapons on
        the highway, in a manner noticeable by the highway patrol. They
        make no allegations in their complaint that suggest they intend to
        carry weapons on a highway or that their carrying would be no-
        ticeable to a highway patrolman. Second, the plaintiffs would need
        to be doing something else unlawful to allow the highway patrol to
        detain them for their carrying violation. Because Georgia law for-
        bids it, we cannot presume the highway patrol would detain the
        plaintiffs solely to enforce the firearms laws. See Bush, 329 F.3d at
        1266 (holding that a future injury based on the occurrence of a “ran-
        dom or unauthorized act[]”is “too speculative” for standing pur-
        poses). And, again, the plaintiffs make no allegations about an in-
        tent to do anything unlawful that would warrant an unrelated stop
        by the highway patrol that could then lead to an investigation into
        their carry status. The result is that the chain of events that runs
        from the Commissioner to the enforcement of the challenged law
        is far too speculative.
               The bottom line is that the FPC and its members have stand-
        ing to sue the probate judges but not the Commissioner.
                                         3.

               Finally, the probate judges argue that neither the FPC nor
        its three individual members have standing to sue because no
        member has applied for and been denied a license. Under well-es-
        tablished caselaw, this fact does not matter. A plaintiff can satisfy
        the injury-in-fact requirement even if his injury rests on a formal
        application he did not submit when that formal application would
USCA11 Case: 22-13444      Document: 45-1       Date Filed: 02/09/2024      Page: 17 of 22

        22-13444                Opinion of the Court                          17

        merely be a “futile gesture” and he was otherwise “able and ready”
        to apply. Carney v. Adams, 592 U.S. 53, 66 (2020) (first citing Int’l
        Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 365–66 (1977); and
        then citing Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas, 458 U.S. 941, 944 n.2
        (1982)).
                Though the plaintiffs did not apply for licenses, any applica-
        tion for a carry license would be a futile gesture because they do
        not meet the state’s requirements for license holders. As the Su-
        preme Court has explained, when a statute requires that the plain-
        tiffs be denied “a permit had they applied for one[,] [t]heir failure
        to apply therefore does not deprive them of standing to challenge
        the legality of the” statute. Sporhase, 458 U.S. at 944 n.2.
                For their part, the plaintiffs pleaded sufficient facts to estab-
        lish that—but for their age—they are otherwise able and ready to
        apply. Two of the three individual plaintiffs own firearms already,
        with the other pleading that she would acquire one if given a li-
        cense to carry. None has a history of violent behavior. All allege
        that they regularly face dangerous situations for which they would
        like to carry weapons. And all allege that the active enforcement of
        the carry ban deters them from carrying weapons or even applying
        for a license.
               Relying on inapposite precedents, the probate judges argue
        that there is no futility exception to standing. That argument is, of
        course, incorrect. Instead, these authorities hold only that plaintiffs
        cannot sue over policies or practices that are not the cause of their
        injuries.
USCA11 Case: 22-13444      Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 02/09/2024     Page: 18 of 22

        18                     Opinion of the Court                  22-13444

               In Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163 (1972), for exam-
        ple, a black man was refused service while visiting as a guest of a
        white member of the Lodge. The Lodge had a white-only mem-
        bership policy and a policy against serving non-white guests of
        members. Id. at 165–66. The Court held that the plaintiff could not
        sue over the lodge’s membership policies because he had never
        sought to be a member and apparently did not assert that he ever
        planned to be or wanted to be a member. Instead, because he had
        sought to be served as a guest, the Court held that he had standing
        to sue over the guest policies. Id. at 166–68. Unlike in Moose Lodge,
        the plaintiffs here are suing over the enforcement of the policies
        that prevent them from having weapons carry licenses, not policies
        that have not and will not affect them.
               Similarly, in Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984), a nation-
        wide class of parents of black schoolchildren complained that the
        IRS did not do enough to “deny tax-exempt status to racially dis-
        criminatory private schools.” Id. at 739. The plaintiffs pointed to
        two injuries caused by the beneficial tax-exempt status of racially
        discriminatory schools. They said that they were harmed by “the
        mere fact of Government financial aid to discriminatory private
        schools” and that the existence of “racially discriminatory private
        schools in their communities impair their ability to have their pub-
        lic schools desegregated.” Id. at 752–53. The court held that the first
        injury was not judicially cognizable, id. at 754, and that the second
        injury was not traceable to the government’s conduct. Id. at 757.
        Here, on the other hand, the plaintiffs’ injuries are judicially
USCA11 Case: 22-13444      Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 02/09/2024      Page: 19 of 22

        22-13444                Opinion of the Court                         19

        cognizable, and the plaintiffs are challenging the enforcement of a
        statute that has caused, and will continue to cause, those injuries.
                Finally, the probate judges rely on one of our precedents in
        support of their argument that the plaintiffs must apply for a li-
        cense, even if futile, to gain standing. But that precedent, Swann v.
        Sec’y, Ga., 668 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2012), is even further afield. Alt-
        hough we addressed the Supreme Court’s futility caselaw in
        Swann, we expressly did so only in the context of a post-enforce-
        ment challenge. Id. at 1288–89. We held that a plaintiff challenging
        the post-enforcement application of a statute had to meet the
        standing requirements based on the facts as they had occurred, not
        rely “on an imaginary set of facts” that could have occurred. Id. at
        1289. We further explained that Swann could not invoke the Su-
        preme Court’s futility caselaw because those “inapposite” authori-
        ties “address pre-enforcement challenges to statutes.” Id. Here, un-
        like in Swann, we face a quintessential pre-enforcement challenge.
        In such challenges, the Supreme Court has long established a futil-
        ity exception, as we recognized in Swann. See Carney, 592 U.S. at 66
        (collecting cases).
                Ultimately, we hold that there is standing for the FPC and
        its affected members to sue the probate judges but not the Com-
        missioner.
                                        B.

             With standing out of the way, let us now turn to ripeness
        and mootness.
USCA11 Case: 22-13444      Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 02/09/2024      Page: 20 of 22

        20                      Opinion of the Court                  22-13444

                We will start with ripeness. A ripeness question requires us
        to consider “whether there is sufficient injury to meet Article III’s
        requirement of a case or controversy and, if so, whether the claim
        is sufficiently mature, and the issues sufficiently defined and con-
        crete, to permit effective decision-making by the court.” Elend v.
        Basham, 471 F.3d 1199, 1211 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). In
        cases involving pre-enforcement review, like this one, the standing
        and ripeness analysis tend to converge. Id. at 1205. The plaintiffs’
        claims are ripe for the same reasons they suffered an injury in fact.
        Driehaus makes clear that the plaintiffs need not actually face pun-
        ishment or prosecution to allege a justiciable injury in fact, so long
        as they face a credible threat of punishment, 573 U.S. at 158–59,
        which they do.
               The defendants say and the district court concluded that the
        plaintiffs’ claims are not ripe because they never applied for a weap-
        ons license that was denied, nor are they facing any prosecution.
        But, again, the plaintiffs need not actually apply for and be denied
        a license to suffer a justiciable injury in fact. As Carney instructs, a
        failure to apply can be overcome by facts that show such an appli-
        cation would be futile, so long as the plaintiffs stood able and ready
        to apply. See 592 U.S. at 65–66. An application for a license forbid-
        den by state law would be futile, so the plaintiffs need not actually
        apply to allege an injury in fact. See Sporhase, 458 U.S. at 945 n.2.
        And, as discussed earlier, the plaintiffs here are able and ready to
        apply. For similar reasons to those raised in our standing discus-
        sion, the injury is ripe.
USCA11 Case: 22-13444      Document: 45-1       Date Filed: 02/09/2024      Page: 21 of 22

        22-13444                Opinion of the Court                          21

               Now consider mootness. Courts have no jurisdiction to hear
        a case when it is moot. See Fla. Ass’n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. Fla.
        Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 225 F.3d 1208, 1216 (11th Cir. 2000).
        “A case is moot when it no longer presents a live controversy with
        respect to which the court can give meaningful relief.” Id. at 1217
        (cleaned up).
               There are two mootness questions here.
               First, did the post-lawsuit changes to the licensing regime
        render the plaintiffs’ claims moot? The probate judges argue and
        the district court concluded that, because some people no longer
        need licenses to carry weapons after those changes, this case is
        moot. We disagree. The new licensing regime is a bifurcated one.
        There are two ways one can carry a weapon. One is by being eligi-
        ble for a license (as relevant here, by being over twenty-one). The
        other is to obtain a license. So, after the changes to the licensing
        regime, if someone is eligible for a license, it is a moot point
        whether he can obtain one. Here, though, the underage plaintiffs
        remain ineligible for a license because of the preexisting statutory
        age limits. Although the statutory changes may affect other people,
        they did not affect the plaintiffs or others under the age of twenty-
        one—the only way they can carry a weapon is to get a license. Thus,
        there is no doubt that a live controversy continues to exist, even
        though the licensing regime has changed.
              Second, because the case has been pending for so long, an-
        other mootness question has arisen since the district court’s judg-
        ment. Have the individual plaintiffs turned twenty-one while this
USCA11 Case: 22-13444      Document: 45-1       Date Filed: 02/09/2024       Page: 22 of 22

        22                      Opinion of the Court                    22-13444

        suit was pending, rendering their challenge moot? We are confi-
        dent that the case is not moot—at least as to one of the individual
        plaintiffs and the FPC. Although Meyer and Long have turned
        twenty-one while this case has been pending, Baughcum is still
        twenty. So his claim (and thus the FPC’s claim based on his mem-
        bership in the organization) is not moot. Moreover, the FPC is a
        large membership organization and says it has other eighteen-to
        twenty-one-year-old members in Georgia, such that it continues to
        have associational standing to litigate this suit. See Arcia v. Fla. Sec’y
        of State, 772 F.3d 1335, 1342 (11th Cir. 2014) (stating that “large or-
        ganizations like the NAACP had standing because there was a high
        probability that at least one of the members would be” injured (cit-
        ing Fla. State Conf. of N.A.A.C.P. v. Browning, 522 F.3d 1153, 1163
        (11th Cir. 2008)). On remand, the district court may evaluate
        whether any exception to mootness applies to Meyer’s and Long’s
        claims against the probate judges, see, e.g., Lara, No. 21-1832, slip
        op. at 30–31, and whether the FPC should make allegations about,
        or introduce evidence of, additional members.
                                         IV.

               The district court is REVERSED IN PART AND
        AFFIRMED IN PART. The matter is REMANDED for proceed-
        ings consistent with this opinion.