New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen
In a 6–3 decision issued in June 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that New York's law was unconstitutional and that the ability to bear arms in public was a constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
141 S. Ct. 2111 · No. 20-843 · 2021 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jun 23, 2022 · argued Nov 3, 2021
Criminal procedure · Miscellaneous criminal procedure
Landmark · Second Amendment rightsStruck down a state law
Majority opinion: Clarence Thomas
The voteMajorityDissent
6–36 in the majority, 3 in dissent
3 dissents (6–3)
Reversed and remanded. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), abbreviated NYSRPA v. Bruen and also known as Bruen or NYSRPA II (to distinguish it from the 2020 case), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court related to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case concerned the constitutionality of the 1911 Sullivan Act, a New York State law requiring applicants for a pistol concealed carry license to show "proper cause", or a special need distinguishable from that of the general public, in their application.
In a 6–3 decision issued in June 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that New York's law was unconstitutional and that the ability to bear arms in public was a constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Court ruled that states are allowed to enforce "shall-issue" permitting, where applicants for concealed carry permits must satisfy certain objective criteria, such as passing a background check, but that "may-issue" systems that use "arbitrary" evaluations of need made by local authorities are unconstitutional.
In the wake of Bruen, several lawsuits involving federal and states' gun regulations have been filed, their plaintiffs arguing that the judiciary should evaluate the regulation not in consideration of the public good, but in light of the "historical tradition of firearm regulation", a phrase penned by majority opinion author Justice Clarence Thomas. The Supreme Court's decision has been considered by some to be a dramatic expansion of its gun jurisprudence, and has been criticized by lower courts as unworkable. Others hold that the findings of Bruen reaffirm the precedent set by District of Columbia v. Heller and clarifies the framework with which lower courts are to decide Second Amendment cases. In June 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Rahimi that federal laws restricting gun rights from those accused of domestic violence are constitutional, with the majority decision refining Bruen and stating that courts should not seek exact comparisons when applying the historical tradition test but rather look at similar analogues and general principles.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2021 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(6)
Clarence ThomasWrote the majority opinion
Brett KavanaughWrote a concurrence
Amy BarrettWrote a concurrence
Samuel AlitoWrote a concurrence
John RobertsJoined the majority
Neil GorsuchJoined the majority
Dissent(3)
Stephen BreyerWrote a dissent
Sonia SotomayorJoined a dissent
Elena KaganJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc.Public interest organization
- Respondent
- BruenState department or agency (New York)
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Second Amendment
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- Decided by
- Judicial review (state level)
- Struck down
- A state law, as unconstitutional
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 23, 2022DecidedDecided · Decided 6–3: reversed and remanded. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. won.
- Nov 3, 2021ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the New York Northern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
16 other argued cases since 1946 on miscellaneous criminal procedure, newest first.
- Wolford v. Lopez146 S. Ct. 2032Jun 25, 2026 · 146 S. Ct. 2032Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- United States v. RahimiLandmark · Second Amendment rights144 S. Ct. 1889Jun 21, 2024 · 144 S. Ct. 1889Criminal procedureLandmark · Second Amendment rights8–18–1 band
- Smith v. United States599 U.S. 236Jun 15, 2023 · 599 U.S. 236Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Reed v. Goertz598 U.S. 230Apr 19, 2023 · 598 U.S. 230Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- Otis McDonald, et al. v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al.Landmark · Second Amendment rights561 U.S. 742Jun 28, 2010 · 561 U.S. 742Criminal procedureLandmark · Second Amendment rights5–45–4 band
- District of Columbia v. HellerLandmark · Second Amendment rights554 U.S. 570Jun 26, 2008 · 554 U.S. 570Criminal procedureLandmark · Second Amendment rights5–45–4 band
- Charles B. Miller, Superintendent, Pendleton Correctional Facility, et al., v. Richard A. French, et al.530 U.S. 327Jun 19, 2000 · 530 U.S. 327Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Scott Leslie Carmell v. Texas529 U.S. 513May 1, 2000 · 529 U.S. 513Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Patrick Ramirez v. Indiana471 U.S. 147Apr 1, 1985 · 471 U.S. 147Criminal procedure4–45–4 band
- United States v. Miller471 U.S. 130Apr 1, 1985 · 471 U.S. 130Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
- Waller v. Georgia467 U.S. 39May 21, 1984 · 467 U.S. 39Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Payne v. Madigan, Warden366 U.S. 761Jun 5, 1961 · 366 U.S. 761Criminal procedure4–45–4 band
- New York v. O'Neill359 U.S. 1Mar 2, 1959 · 359 U.S. 1Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- United States v. Sharpnack355 U.S. 286Jan 13, 1958 · 355 U.S. 286Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- Dowd, Warden, v. United States ex rel. Cook340 U.S. 206Jan 2, 1951 · 340 U.S. 206Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Haupt v. United States330 U.S. 631Mar 31, 1947 · 330 U.S. 631Criminal procedure8–18–1 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.