Filed Date: May 15, 2015
Closed Date: April 4, 2024
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case concerns a constitutional challenge to gun laws in the District of Columbia. On May 15, 2015, a North Carolina resident brought suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Government of the District of Columbia. Plaintiff alleged that the District of Columbia’s gun registration laws were unconstitutional, violating the Second and Fifth Amendment rights of individuals situated similarly to her.
In 2014, plaintiff had been pulled over while driving in D.C. and, when she informed the police officer that she was carrying a pistol with a North Carolina permit, she was arrested for possession of an unregistered firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition. The United States Attorney’s Office charged plaintiff with carrying a pistol, possession of an unregistered firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition. In July, the same month as her arraignment, the U.S. District Court in D.C. in Palmer v. District of Columbia, No. 1:09-CV-1482 (D.D.C. 2014), held that D.C.’s total ban on carrying handguns outside the home was unconstitutional, and issued a permanent injunction to bar the enforcement of D.C.’s registration scheme. As a result, plaintiff’s charges were dismissed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office. However, the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia re-charged the plaintiff with violations of D.C. gun law in September 2014, eventually dismissing the claims in April 2015.
Plaintiff alleged that D.C. has long maintained strict gun laws, either voluntarily not issuing licenses to carry handguns or simply lacking a mechanism to do so since before 2008. Plaintiff alleged that the 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), which held that D.C.’s laws forbidding registration of guns for use in the home was unconstitutional, should have put D.C. on notice that registration schemes for carrying guns outside of the home were unconstitutional as well. In addition, plaintiff noted that after Palmer, the U.S. Attorney General’s Office declined to prosecute pending gun possession felony cases, but the Attorney General’s Office continued enforcement, re-filing misdemeanor charges against those individuals. In addition, after Palmer, D.C. amended its laws to allow concealed carry licenses and registration of a pistol in limited circumstances for qualified individuals.
Plaintiff set forth two primary claims in their complaint: (1) D.C.’s permit requirement to carry a handgun combined with its refusal to issue permits for concealed carry firearms resulted in a complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public by almost all individuals, violating the Second Amendment. (2) D.C.’s laws and practices refusing registration of firearms by non-residents violate the rights to travel and equal protection in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Plaintiff sought class certification for all individuals, starting from three years before the filing of her complaint, who were arrested or subject to prosecution in D.C. for violation of D.C.’s gun registration laws. Plaintiff sought injunctive relief, to seal arrest and prosecution records and to enjoin D.C. for implementation of its gun laws, and monetary relief. On May 18, 2015, plaintiff also filed notice that Palmer was a related case, involving common issues of fact. The case was initially assigned to Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., however Judge Sculin determined the matter here was not related to Palmer and therefore scheduled the case for re-assignment. Defendants filed a motion for re-assignment as well. The case was randomly re-assigned to Judge Royce C. Lamberth, who denied defendant’s motion as moot, as Judge Sculin had already made a re-assignment determination.
On July 20, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted: Defendant argued that plaintiff failed to demonstrate a concrete and cognizable injury, with all of her criminal charges having been dismissed after the gun possession laws she was indicted under were deemed unconstitutional and were amended. Defendant further set forth that it is not automatically liable when its employees enforce a law which is presumptively valid but later deemed unconstitutional and therefore plaintiff is not entitled to recovery for any harm caused by prosecution. Defendants further alleged: plaintiff also generally failed to state a claim under the Second Amendment or Fifth Amendment; and that plaintiff’s request for retrospective relief is moot given that D.C. had amended its gun laws, her request for prospective relief fails as she lacks standing to challenge the new gun laws.
On September 15, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. In the amended complaint, plaintiff added two named plaintiffs – one whose work security clearance was “under review” and another who had lost their job as a result of their arrests for gun possession. The complaint added the fact that D.C. seized and destroyed firearms which belonged to people arrested for gun possession violations. Plaintiffs alleged defendant’s actions caused emotional and physical harm, loss of earnings, general damages, and legal expenses. Plaintiffs largely re-asserted the original claims, but added a third claim that D.C.’s policy of seizing firearms and not sending notice to the original owner before destroying or otherwise discarding them violates due process under the Fifth Amendment. Defendants responded with a new motion to dismiss in October, re-alleging that plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and therefore that dismissal is appropriate. As a procedural matter, the court dismissed as moot defendants’ order to dismiss the original complaint.
Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class in November, but then requested leave to amend after coming to an agreement with defendants to defer notice issues, which is generally required under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, until liability is determined. The court agreed, and therefore denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification without prejudice.
Plaintiffs requested leave to amend their complaint a second time.
On September 18, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, implementing changes based on developments in D.C. law since filing and information obtained since beginning the lawsuit. In the second amended complaint, a fourth named plaintiff was added to the action, a non-D.C. resident who had his firearm and car seized when he was arrested for gun possession. Plaintiffs also proposed expanding the class period for all claims up to the present time. Plaintiffs also corrected and added specificity to their claims, alleging generally that defendant: (1) violated plaintiffs’ Second Amendment right by criminalizing the carrying of firearms outside the home and seizing firearms and vehicles owned by plaintiffs; (2) violated the Fourth Amendment right by conducting arrests and detentions without probable cause, and seizing and indefinitely retaining firearms and vehicles apprehended during arrests; (3) and violated the Fifth Amendment right to travel and to due process.
Defendant filed another motion to dismiss on November 16, 2018.
On May 16, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court held that it did have subject-matter jurisdiction and plaintiffs had standing to bring the action here; the court pointed out that plaintiffs demonstrated cognizable injuries stemming from their arrests. Relatedly, the court also held that as some plaintiffs continued to suffer harm flowing from the challenged laws, even if the laws were since amended, that fact did not moot plaintiffs’ claims for relief. The court held that the plaintiffs sufficiently pled cognizable injuries in their Fourth Amendment challenge to D.C.’s seizure of firearms, Second and Fifth Amendment challenges to D.C. firearm possession law, and their Fifth Amendment equal protection and right to travel claims – as such, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss as to those claims. However, the court agreed with defendants that most of plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment challenges (related to their arrest, detention, and seizure of law) fail as a matter of law as plaintiffs were arrested under D.C. law which was presumptively valid at the time, even if it was later deemed unconstitutional. The court pointed out that defendants acted reasonably under the circumstances presented in the record, and plaintiffs received constitutionally adequate judicial determination of probable cause upon and after their arrest.
Plaintiffs submitted a motion in August, requesting the court reconsider its order on defendant’s motion to dismiss. However, on November 27, 2019, the court declined to reconsider its dismissal of certain claims in plaintiff’s amended complaint, reasoning in large part that a motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to reargue decided facts or advance theories of a case which were not previously offered, and that in any case plaintiffs’ argument was substantively weak for reconsideration.
The parties thereafter met and conferred to work out a discovery plan. On February 22, 2021, plaintiffs - with leave granted by the court – filed a third amended complaint. Two named plaintiffs, both of whom were D.C. residents arrested for gun possession and able to serve as Class Representatives, were added to the action, and the complaint added specificity in its allegations and details regarding the arrests of the two new named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also removed from the amended complaint the counts that the court had dismissed.
On March 16, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that each plaintiff had successfully established a predicate constitutional violation arising from D.C.’s gun possession laws and policies. On April 16, 2021, defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and simultaneously filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. Defendants argued that plaintiffs failed to establish that D.C.’s gun possession laws and policies had impeded on their constitutional rights, and any “balancing” required with respect to the property seizure claim tips for the government which has a compelling interest in public safety.
On September 29, 2021, the court issued its decision, granting in part and denying in part both plaintiffs’ and defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court agreed with plaintiffs that D.C.'s laws and policies effectively imposed a complete ban on carrying handguns in public, violating the Second Amendment. Using similar rationale, the court agreed that D.C.'s practices violated the Fifth Amendment rights of non-D.C. residents to travel and equal protection. The court therefore granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on these counts. The court however held that plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment seizure claims could not survive: the government had a compelling interest in protecting the community from potential firearm-related violence, and the government retaining seized property until plaintiffs proved they were firearms registered in another jurisdiction did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on that count.
The case was referred for mediation, with the parties ordered to submit regular joint status reports. The parties eventually negotiated a settlement agreement to submit for court approval. The entire and exact terms of the settlement agreement are not available to the Clearinghouse, but external records and the class and settlement notice illustrate the following terms: Defendant, without admitting any wrongdoing, agreed to pay $5.1 million dollars, with that lump sum to be broken out into payments for the settlement class members, the class representatives, litigation expenses and attorney’s fees, and settlement administration.
On August 25, 2023, plaintiffs submitted an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement pursuant to that agreement, and moved the court to authorize notice to the class. On August 28, the court preliminarily approved the settlement, subject to consideration as needed at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing (held December 2023), appointed a Class Administrator and Class Counsel, and preliminarily granted the settlement class certification and notice to the class. A month after the Fairness Hearing, plaintiffs requested a motion to modify the preliminary approval order, to correct the language of the settlement class so individuals convicted on firearms offenses are not excluded, and to extend the deadline for class members to file their claims. The court granted the motion to modify on February 13, 2024.
1,882 potential class members were identified and mailed notice and claim forms, with claims allowed to be submitted until February 10, 2025.
Plaintiffs then submitted a consent motion to enter the final approval order. On April 4, 2024, the court issued its final order of approval of the settlement. The court found no objection or other just reason for delay, holding that the settlement class and settlement agreement were found to be reasonable and appropriate. The court therefore provided final approval of the settlement (which included an order declaring the arrest of the class members a legal nullity), approved the award of fees and payments negotiated in the settlement agreement, granted plaintiffs attorney’s fees and expenses from the settlement amount, and dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, noting that the order was final and would have res judicata and collateral effect against all class members.
Summary Authors
Keren Yi (3/14/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6238053/parties/smith-v-government-of-the-district-of-columbia/
Lamberth, Royce C. (District of Columbia)
Claiborne, William Charles (District of Columbia)
Blecher, Matthew Robert (District of Columbia)
Booth, Andrew R. (District of Columbia)
Heath, Brendan Russell (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6238053/smith-v-government-of-the-district-of-columbia/
Last updated April 11, 2025, 10:54 a.m.
State / Territory: District of Columbia
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 15, 2015
Closing Date: April 4, 2024
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiffs are individuals who were arrested in D.C., for violation of D.C. gun possession laws
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Government of the District of Columbia, State
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Second Amendment (Right to Bear Arms)
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Mixed
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Issues
General/Misc.: