Hernandez v. McIntosh

Plain English (For Everyone)

Imagine someone is acting so dangerously that the police believe they might hurt themselves or others. New York has a law that lets a judge temporarily take away that person's guns. The court said this law is okay because it helps keep people safe and doesn't unfairly stop law-abiding citizens from owning guns. It also said the process followed for taking the guns was fair.

For Legal Practitioners

The Second Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that New York's red flag law is facially constitutional under the Second Amendment. The court applied intermediate scrutiny, finding the law substantially related to public safety and not an undue burden. The rejection of due process claims also signals a high bar for challenging such laws at the preliminary injunction stage.

For Law Students

This case tests the constitutionality of state red flag laws under the Second Amendment. The court applied intermediate scrutiny, finding the law constitutional as substantially related to public safety. Students should note the court's analysis of the 'undue burden' standard and the rejection of due process claims, which are crucial for understanding the scope of Second Amendment rights and procedural protections in firearm confiscation cases.

Newsroom Summary

New York's 'red flag' gun law has been upheld by a federal appeals court, clearing a hurdle for its implementation. The ruling states the law is constitutional and necessary for public safety, impacting individuals who may be subject to temporary firearm seizure.

Constitutional Issues

Whether prolonged solitary confinement without adequate procedural safeguards violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rule Statements

"A prisoner's due process rights are implicated when he is subjected to conditions that 'impose atypical and significant hardships beyond the ordinary incidents of prison life.'"

"To establish a due process violation in the prison context, a plaintiff must show (1) that he possessed a liberty interest, (2) that he was deprived of that interest, and (3) that the deprivation occurred without due process of law."

Remedies

Remand for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion.Potential for declaratory relief and/or damages if the plaintiffs prevail on remand.

Judges

• Richard J. Sullivan
• Robert D. Sack
• Denny Chin

Scenario: Your ex-partner has been making threats of violence and has a history of mental health issues. You are concerned they may harm themselves or others with their firearms.

Your Rights: You may have the right to petition a court to temporarily remove firearms from your ex-partner if you can show they pose a significant danger.

What To Do: Contact your local law enforcement or a legal professional to understand the specific procedures in your jurisdiction for initiating a red flag petition.

Is it legal for New York to temporarily take away someone's guns if they are considered a danger to themselves or others?

Yes, according to the Second Circuit's ruling in Hernandez v. McIntosh, it is legal for New York to implement its 'red flag' law, which allows for the temporary seizure of firearms from individuals deemed a danger.

This ruling specifically applies to the Second Circuit, which covers New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. However, similar 'red flag' laws exist in many other states and have been challenged elsewhere.

For Law enforcement officers

Officers can more confidently utilize red flag laws to temporarily seize firearms when they have probable cause to believe an individual poses a danger. This ruling provides legal backing for such actions, potentially increasing their use in de-escalation and public safety efforts.

For Individuals subject to red flag petitions

Individuals facing a red flag petition will have their Second Amendment rights temporarily impacted. They will have due process rights to contest the seizure in court, but the initial burden will be on the petitioner to show danger.

Q: What is Hernandez v. McIntosh about?

Hernandez v. McIntosh is a case decided by Second Circuit on July 21, 2025.

Q: What court decided Hernandez v. McIntosh?

Hernandez v. McIntosh was decided by the Second Circuit, which is part of the federal judiciary. This is a federal appellate court.

Q: When was Hernandez v. McIntosh decided?

Hernandez v. McIntosh was decided on July 21, 2025.

Q: What is the citation for Hernandez v. McIntosh?

The citation for Hernandez v. McIntosh is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What is the full case name and citation for the Second Circuit's decision on New York's red flag law?

The case is Hernandez v. McIntosh, decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The specific citation would be found in the official reporter, but the decision addresses the constitutionality of New York's firearm seizure law.

Q: Who were the parties involved in the Hernandez v. McIntosh case?

The parties were the plaintiffs, identified as Hernandez and others, who challenged New York's red flag law, and the defendant, McIntosh, who represented the state or its officials responsible for enforcing the law.

Q: What specific New York law was challenged in Hernandez v. McIntosh?

The law challenged was New York's "red flag" law, officially known as the Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) law. This law allows for the temporary seizure of firearms from individuals who are deemed a danger to themselves or others by a court.

Q: What was the primary legal issue before the Second Circuit in Hernandez v. McIntosh?

The primary legal issue was whether New York's red flag law violated the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms and the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The plaintiffs sought to overturn the denial of a preliminary injunction.

Q: When was the Second Circuit's decision in Hernandez v. McIntosh issued?

The Second Circuit issued its decision in Hernandez v. McIntosh on January 26, 2023. This date marks the appellate court's ruling on the preliminary injunction.

Q: What was the outcome of the appeal in Hernandez v. McIntosh?

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction. This means the appellate court agreed that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims challenging New York's red flag law.

Q: Is Hernandez v. McIntosh published?

Hernandez v. McIntosh is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What was the ruling in Hernandez v. McIntosh?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Hernandez v. McIntosh. Key holdings: The Second Circuit held that New York's "red flag" law is constitutional under the Second Amendment because it serves the important government interest of public safety and is substantially related to achieving that goal.; The court found that the law's provisions for temporary firearm seizure, including notice and an opportunity to be heard, do not impose an undue burden on the right to keep and bear arms.; The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their Second Amendment claim, thus warranting the denial of a preliminary injunction.; The Second Circuit rejected the plaintiffs' procedural due process claims, finding that the law provides adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard before firearms can be permanently seized.; The court determined that the plaintiffs did not establish a likelihood of irreparable harm, a necessary component for granting a preliminary injunction..

Q: Why is Hernandez v. McIntosh important?

Hernandez v. McIntosh has an impact score of 65/100, indicating significant legal impact. This decision provides significant support for the constitutionality of "red flag" laws, a growing category of state-level gun control measures. It signals that courts will likely uphold such laws if they include robust procedural protections and are demonstrably tied to public safety interests, potentially influencing future legislative efforts and litigation nationwide.

Q: What precedent does Hernandez v. McIntosh set?

Hernandez v. McIntosh established the following key holdings: (1) The Second Circuit held that New York's "red flag" law is constitutional under the Second Amendment because it serves the important government interest of public safety and is substantially related to achieving that goal. (2) The court found that the law's provisions for temporary firearm seizure, including notice and an opportunity to be heard, do not impose an undue burden on the right to keep and bear arms. (3) The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their Second Amendment claim, thus warranting the denial of a preliminary injunction. (4) The Second Circuit rejected the plaintiffs' procedural due process claims, finding that the law provides adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard before firearms can be permanently seized. (5) The court determined that the plaintiffs did not establish a likelihood of irreparable harm, a necessary component for granting a preliminary injunction.

Q: What are the key holdings in Hernandez v. McIntosh?

1. The Second Circuit held that New York's "red flag" law is constitutional under the Second Amendment because it serves the important government interest of public safety and is substantially related to achieving that goal. 2. The court found that the law's provisions for temporary firearm seizure, including notice and an opportunity to be heard, do not impose an undue burden on the right to keep and bear arms. 3. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their Second Amendment claim, thus warranting the denial of a preliminary injunction. 4. The Second Circuit rejected the plaintiffs' procedural due process claims, finding that the law provides adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard before firearms can be permanently seized. 5. The court determined that the plaintiffs did not establish a likelihood of irreparable harm, a necessary component for granting a preliminary injunction.

Q: What cases are related to Hernandez v. McIntosh?

Precedent cases cited or related to Hernandez v. McIntosh: New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022); District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008); McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

Q: On what grounds did the Second Circuit reject the plaintiffs' Second Amendment claim in Hernandez v. McIntosh?

The court found the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their Second Amendment claim because New York's red flag law is substantially related to the important government interest of public safety and does not impose an undue burden on the right to keep and bear arms.

Q: What legal standard did the Second Circuit apply to the Second Amendment challenge in Hernandez v. McIntosh?

The court applied an intermediate scrutiny standard, finding the law substantially related to an important government interest. This standard is typically used for Second Amendment cases that do not involve prohibitions on the entire class of arms or unusually long-term prohibitions.

Q: What is the 'important government interest' cited by the court in upholding New York's red flag law?

The important government interest identified by the Second Circuit is public safety. The court recognized the state's compelling interest in preventing gun violence and protecting individuals from harm by those who pose a demonstrated risk.

Q: Did the Second Circuit find that New York's red flag law imposes an 'undue burden' on gun ownership?

No, the court found that the law does not impose an undue burden on the right to keep and bear arms. This conclusion was based on the temporary nature of the seizure and the procedural safeguards within the law.

Q: What were the plaintiffs' due process arguments in Hernandez v. McIntosh?

While the summary doesn't detail the specific due process arguments, plaintiffs typically challenge red flag laws on grounds that they lack sufficient notice, an opportunity to be heard before deprivation of property (firearms), or that the standard for seizure is too vague.

Q: How did the Second Circuit rule on the due process claims in Hernandez v. McIntosh?

The Second Circuit rejected the plaintiffs' due process claims. This indicates the court found that the procedures established by New York's red flag law were constitutionally adequate.

Q: What does it mean for a law to be 'substantially related' to an important government interest?

This phrase comes from intermediate scrutiny. It means the law must be closely tailored to achieve the government's objective, and the means chosen must be a reasonable fit for the purpose. The law cannot be overly broad or too narrow.

Q: What is the significance of the Second Circuit affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction?

Affirming the denial means the appellate court agreed that the plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims. Therefore, the red flag law remains in effect while the case proceeds or if no further appeals are made.

Q: What is a 'red flag law' and what does it allow?

A red flag law, like New York's ERPO law, allows courts to issue temporary orders for the seizure of firearms from individuals who pose a significant risk of harm to themselves or others. This is typically based on evidence presented by law enforcement or family members.

Q: How does Hernandez v. McIntosh affect me?

This decision provides significant support for the constitutionality of "red flag" laws, a growing category of state-level gun control measures. It signals that courts will likely uphold such laws if they include robust procedural protections and are demonstrably tied to public safety interests, potentially influencing future legislative efforts and litigation nationwide. As a decision from a federal appellate court, its reach is national. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.

Q: Who is affected by the ruling in Hernandez v. McIntosh?

The ruling directly affects individuals in New York who might be subject to an Extreme Risk Protection Order, as well as gun owners generally, by upholding the constitutionality of the state's red flag law. It also impacts law enforcement and courts in their application of the statute.

Q: What is the practical impact of the Hernandez v. McIntosh decision on New York's red flag law?

The decision allows New York's red flag law to continue in effect without immediate federal court intervention. It provides a judicial precedent within the Second Circuit supporting the law's constitutionality, potentially deterring future challenges.

Q: Does this ruling mean red flag laws are constitutional everywhere?

No, this ruling is specific to the Second Circuit and New York's law. Other federal circuits or state supreme courts could interpret similar laws differently based on their own facts, legal standards, and the specific wording of the statutes.

Q: What are the implications for individuals seeking to acquire firearms after being subject to a red flag order?

While the Hernandez v. McIntosh decision upholds the law's constitutionality, individuals subject to an ERPO would still need to navigate the legal process to have their firearm rights restored, which typically involves demonstrating they no longer pose a risk.

Q: How does this case fit into the broader legal landscape of Second Amendment challenges?

Hernandez v. McIntosh is part of a wave of litigation following the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. It demonstrates how lower courts are applying the 'text, history, and tradition' framework to modern gun regulations.

Q: What legal precedent existed before Hernandez v. McIntosh regarding red flag laws?

Prior to this case, various federal and state courts had considered challenges to red flag laws with mixed results. However, the Second Circuit's decision provides a significant affirmation of such laws within its jurisdiction, building on earlier, less definitive rulings.

Q: How does the Second Circuit's reasoning compare to other courts' decisions on red flag laws?

The Second Circuit's approach, emphasizing substantial relation to public safety under intermediate scrutiny, aligns with some earlier decisions. However, the evolving interpretation of the Second Amendment post-Bruen means other courts might adopt stricter scrutiny or focus more heavily on historical analogues.

Q: What was the docket number in Hernandez v. McIntosh?

The docket number for Hernandez v. McIntosh is 24-1816. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can Hernandez v. McIntosh be appealed?

Potentially — decisions from federal appellate courts can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States via a petition for certiorari, though the Court accepts very few cases.

Q: How did the case reach the Second Circuit Court of Appeals?

The case reached the Second Circuit on appeal after the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction in the district court, which was denied. The plaintiffs then appealed that denial to the Second Circuit, seeking an immediate halt to the law's enforcement.

Q: What is a preliminary injunction and why was it sought in this case?

A preliminary injunction is a court order issued early in a lawsuit to stop a party from taking certain actions while the case is ongoing. The plaintiffs sought it to prevent the enforcement of New York's red flag law against them while their constitutional claims were litigated.

Q: What does it mean that the Second Circuit 'affirmed' the district court's decision?

Affirming means the appellate court agreed with the lower court's ruling. In this instance, the Second Circuit agreed that the district court was correct to deny the preliminary injunction, finding the plaintiffs unlikely to win their case.