Plaintiffs cannot sue the judge for denying them a gun license

Can you sue a state court judge under the civil rights laws because he denied you a firearms license? The plaintiffs in this case did so, but the Court of Appeals says the law does not provide for such lawsuits, and the case is dismissed.

The case is Kellogg v. Nichols, issued on August 18. We have two plaintiffs. Each had their gun license denied by Jonathan Nichols, a state court judge in Columbia County, just south of Albany. Judges have authority to grant or deny gun licenses under state law. The judge said one plaintiff cannot have a gun license because of his criminal arrest history and inadequate explanations for not disclosing that history in his application. The other plaintiff's criminal history also led the judge to believe he lacked the maturity to own a gun. Hence, this Section 1983 lawsuit against the judge under the Second and Fourth Amendments.

Ever since the Supreme Court gave life to the Second Amendment in 2008, we have seen an increase in gun rights litigation. Some of these cases succeed, as the Supreme Court is granting gun owners broad rights under the Constitution. But the law has held for years that you generally cannot sue judges for their judicial rulings.

The Court of Appeals (Raggi, Wesley and Lohier) holds the plaintiffs cannot sue the judge in his individual capacity because it is settled law that judges have immunity from lawsuits for decisions made in their judicial capacity. Acts arising from individual cases before the judge are deemed judicial in nature. Firearms licensing ruling fall into this equation. While the law is settled in this area, plaintiffs want the Second Circuit to overturn a key precedent on this issue, Libertarian Party of Erie County v. Cuomo, 970 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2020). But the Court of Appeals does not overturn its prior rulings without direction from the Supreme Court or an en banc sitting of the Second Circuit, where all the active judges convene for that purpose. That rarely happens, and for now, it has not happened here. A three-judge panel is not free to discard precedent so easily.

What about the lawsuit against the judge in his official capacity? In this branch of the lawsuit, plaintiffs want to enjoin enforcement of the state firearms licensing law and criminal statutes punishing gun possession for self defense, and they relatedly want a declaratory judgment that the judge violated the Second and Fourth Amendments. This portion of the ruling is more complicated than the individual capacity claim and explains why it took nearly a year for the court to issue a ruling. The Second Circuit holds there is no case because there is no live case or controversy under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The holding is that "there is no live case or controversy between New York state court judges serving as firearms licensing officers and litigants challenging the State's licensing scheme." Since Judge Nichols acted as a judicial officer in denying the gun licenses here and the plaintiffs and Judge Nichols are not parties "having adverse legal interests with respect to the Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief."