JANE DOE V. BONTA, No. 23-55133 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Five registered gun owners in California challenged a state law, Assembly Bill 173 (AB 173), which permits the California Department of Justice (DOJ) to share information from its databases about firearm and ammunition purchasers and concealed carry weapon (CCW) permit holders with accredited research institutions. The plaintiffs argued that the law violated their right to informational privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment, their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and the federal Privacy Act.
The district court dismissed the case, finding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of the right to informational privacy. The court reasoned that the personal information in the DOJ's databases was not highly sensitive or intimate and that the plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation that such information would never be disclosed. The court also found that AB 173 did not restrict conduct protected by the Second Amendment, as it did not impede the plaintiffs' ability to purchase, keep, carry, or use firearms. The court further held that AB 173 was not unconstitutionally retroactive, as it did not attach new legal consequences to past conduct. Finally, the court rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the Privacy Act preempted two California statutes relating to CCW permit applications, as neither statute required the disclosure of social security numbers.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing with its findings and reasoning. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of the right to informational privacy, the Second Amendment, or the Privacy Act.
Court Description: Right to Informational Privacy/Second Amendment. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by five registered California gun owners who challenged California legislation aimed at encouraging research on firearm violence that permits the California Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to disseminate information from its databases to accredited research institutions about purchasers of firearms and ammunition, as well as persons who hold permits to carry concealed weapons (“CCWs”).
Assembly Bill 173 (“AB 173”) requires the DOJ to provide information which is largely biographical and similar to that found in other public registries to a research center at the University of California-Davis and gives the DOJ discretion to disseminate this information to other accredited research institutions.
The panel held that plaintiffs did not state a claim for violation of the right to informational privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment. The personal information that the DOJ is statutorily required to retain in its databases related to purchasers of firearms and ammunition and applicants for CWW permits is not intimate personal information that would implicate the right to privacy. Plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation that such information would never be disclosed. Plaintiffs did not state a claim for violation of the Second Amendment. Permitting gun owners’ information to be shared under strict privacy protection protocols for legitimate research purposes does not restrict conduct covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment.
Plaintiffs did not state a due process claim that AB 173 is unconstitutionally retroactive. AB 173 creates no new cause of action, remedy, or liability for past applications and purchases, but rather provides only for a limited distribution of information.
Finally, the panel rejected plaintiffs’ claim that the Privacy Act, which requires state agencies to communicate certain information when they request social security numbers (“SSNs”) from individuals, preempts two California statutes, Cal. Penal Code §§ 26175, 11106(d), relating to applications for CCW permits. Although a prior version of the State’s CCW application form did request applicants’ SSNs, the State’s current form no longer does so, and the statutes plaintiffs cite do not require SSN disclosure. Accordingly, there is no conflict with the Privacy Act.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.