Joshua Clay McCoy; Tyler Dalton McGrath; Ian Fletcher Shackley; Justin Timothy Fraser v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Steven Dettelbach; Pamela Jo Bondi

McCoy v. ATF · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · June 18, 2025 · No. 23-2085

Summary

This Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion addresses whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1), which prohibits the commercial sale of handguns to individuals under 21, violates the Second Amendment rights of 18- to 20-year-olds. Applying the Supreme Court's Bruen test, the court holds that the statute is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation, drawing an analogy to the common-law infancy doctrine that restricted minors' ability to enter contracts. The court reverses the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and remands with directions to dismiss.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Writing for the Court
J. Harvie Wilkinson III; Julius N. Richardson Quattlebaum; Toby Heytens
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decision date
June 18, 2025
Docket number
23-2085
Procedural posture
The government appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia's grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, subsequent nationwide Rule 23(b)(2) class certification, declaratory judgment, and permanent injunction in a facial constitutional challenge to federal restrictions on licensed dealers' sales of handguns to persons aged 18 to 20.
Standard of review
De novo review of the constitutionality of a statute; abuse-of-discretion review of class certification.
Precedential value
Published and precedential Fourth Circuit opinion.
Parties
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Steven Dettelbach, in his official capacity as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Pamela Jo Bondi, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the United States v. Joshua Clay McCoy, Tyler Dalton McGrath, Ian Fletcher Shackley, Justin Timothy Fraser
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

second amendmentconstitutional lawcivil rights

Practice areas

constitutional lawfirearms lawcivil rightsclass actions

Questions Presented

  1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1)'s prohibition on federally licensed dealers selling handguns to persons under 21 violates the Second Amendment.
  2. Whether the Second Amendment's text covers 18- to 20-year-olds' purchase of handguns from commercial sellers.
  3. Whether the historical tradition of firearm regulation supports the constitutionality of § 922(b)(1) under the text, history, and tradition framework of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen.
  4. Whether the district court erred by certifying a nationwide Rule 23(b)(2) class after granting summary judgment on the merits.

Holdings

  1. Section 922(b)(1) is constitutional because its restriction on licensed dealers' commercial sales of handguns to persons under 21 is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
  2. The district court erred by certifying the nationwide class after granting summary judgment because Rule 23(c)(1)(A) requires class certification at an early practicable time.

Key quotations

We hold that it does not. From English common law to America’s founding and beyond, our regulatory tradition has permitted restrictions on the sale of firearms to individuals under the age of 21. (slip op. at 4)
In sum, the infancy doctrine demonstrates that there was an early American tradition of burdening the ability of 18- to 20-year-olds to purchase goods, including firearms. (slip op. at 14)
By conditioning the sale of handguns on a buyer’s age, § 922(b)(1) is presumptively lawful. (slip op. at 21)

Factual background

The plaintiffs were four individuals aged 18 to 20 who wanted to purchase handguns from federally licensed firearms dealers. Section 922(b)(1) prohibits licensed dealers from selling handguns and other non-rifle or non-shotgun firearms to persons the dealer knows or reasonably believes are under 21, although it does not prohibit possession, use, gifts, or private sales. Congress enacted the restriction as part of the 1968 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act after finding a relationship between handgun availability and youthful criminal behavior.

Procedural history

Plaintiffs sued the ATF and federal officials under federal-question jurisdiction, alleging that 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and 922(c)(1), and related regulations, violated the Second Amendment. The district court granted plaintiffs' summary-judgment motion, later certified a nationwide class of 18- to 20-year-olds, and entered declaratory and injunctive relief. The Fourth Circuit reversed the merits judgment, held that class certification after the merits ruling was erroneous because it was not made at an early practicable time, and remanded with directions to dismiss.

Remand instructions

Remand with directions to dismiss the action.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…