On September 19, 2024, the Supreme Court of Illinois decided Davis v. Yenchko,[1] a case challenging the constitutionality of section 8(n) of the Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) Card Act.[2]  Under the FOID Card Act, an Illinois resident wishing to buy firearms or ammunition needs to have a FOID card.   Several categories of persons are “firearms prohibitors,” those who are ineligible for FOID cards. These include minors, those with felony convictions, persons with mental or developmental disabilities, those addicted to controlled substances, or those subject to a Protection Order.[3] A person applies for a FOID card through the Illinois Department of State Police (DSP) website, and a FOID card is valid for ten years. The DSP monitors state and federal databases to ensure that firearms prohibitors do not possess FOID cards.

Promoted as a way to “address gun violence as a public health crisis,”[4] the FOID Card Act creates a “state record of gun owners and users.”[5]

On July 5, 2016, Aaron and Charles Davis, a father and son, were charged with reckless discharge of a firearm, a felony, after repeatedly firing a semi-automatic rifle into the air.[6] Since they had been charged with a felony, their FOID cards were revoked “pursuant to section 8(n) of the FOID Card Act, which authorizes the revocation of the FOID card of any individual who is ‘prohibited from acquiring or possessing firearms or firearm ammunition by any Illinois State statute or by federal law.’”[7] The charges were later reduced to misdemeanor reckless conduct. After they pled guilty to misdemeanors, their FOID cards were reinstated.[8]

Plaintiffs argued that the automatic revocation of their FOID cards upon being charged with, but not convicted of, a felony violated their constitutional rights. Although their FOID cards were reinstated after the charges were reduced to misdemeanors, they pursued litigation seeking a declaration that section 8(n) was unconstitutional as applied and an injunction to prevent similar future actions.[9]

The Madison County circuit court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring section 8(n) unconstitutional as applied to individuals charged with, but not convicted of, a felony offense, and it issued a permanent injunction.[10] Additionally, the court awarded attorney fees and costs to the plaintiffs.[11]

The Illinois Supreme Court vacated this ruling on procedural grounds.[12] The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing at the time they filed the complaint because their FOID cards had already been reinstated, eliminating any actual controversy.[13] “The purpose of the doctrine of standing is to ensure that courts are deciding actual, specific controversies and not abstract questions or moot issues.”[14] The court concluded that, since the plaintiffs’ FOID cards had been reinstated, “plaintiffs were no longer deprived of their constitutional right to bear arms and no longer had a legally recognizable interest sufficient to achieve standing.”[15] Consequently, the court vacated the circuit court’s judgment, including the award of attorney fees, and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the complaint.[16]

The decision underscores the challenges inherent in bringing as-applied constitutional challenges to firearm regulations. The Illinois Supreme Court avoided addressing the substantive Second Amendment claims, leaving unresolved broader questions about the balance between public safety and individual rights. As a result, future challenges to the FOID Card Act will need to establish standing and an active controversy to move forward.

By focusing on procedural doctrines such as standing and mootness, the court reaffirmed its commitment to judicial restraint, signaling that courts must refrain from resolving constitutional questions in the absence of a concrete and ongoing injury. This ruling highlights the importance of procedural barriers in shaping the litigation landscape for Second Amendment cases in Illinois.

For those monitoring Second Amendment jurisprudence, Davis v. Yenchko illustrates the hurdles litigants face in challenging firearm regulations, even in the wake of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.[17] Davis v. Yenchko serves as a reminder that procedural issues often determine whether substantive constitutional claims receive their day in court.

 

[1] Davis v. Yenchko, No. 129751, 2024 WL 4231747 (Ill. 2024).

[2] 430 Ill. Comp Stat. Ann. 65/8(n) (West 2023).

[3] Id.

[4] “Gov. Pritzker Signs FOID Modernization Bill, Expanding Background Checks to All Gun Sales in Illinois,” Illinois Government Press Release, Aug. 2, 2021, https://www.illinois.gov/news/press-release.23654.html.

[5] Phillip Nelsen, “What is a FOID Card – Everything you need to know,” LegalHeat, Feb. 11, 2022, https://legalheat.com/blog/what-is-a-foid-card-everything-you-need-to-know/.

[6] Davis, 2024 WL 4231747, at *1.

[7] Id. (quoting 430 Ill. Comp Stat. Ann. 65/8(n)).

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id. at *2.

[11] Id.

[12] Id. at *1.

[13] Id. at *2.

[14] Id. at *3 (citing In re Marriage of Rodriguez, 131 Ill. 2d 273, 279-80 (1989)).

[15] Id. at *5.

[16] Id. at *6.

[17] 597 U.S. 1 (2022).

Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at [email protected].