Christopher Baughcum, Jr., et al. v. Genola Jackson, et al.

[PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-13444
____________________
CHRISTOPHER BAUGHCUM, JR.,
ZANE MEYERS,
SOPHIE LONG,
FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
GENOLA JACKSON,
in her individual capacity and in her official capacity
as Judge of the Laurens County Probate Court,
JANICE D. SPIRES,
in her individual capacity and in her official capacity
as Judge of the Houston County Probate Court,
KATHRYN B. MARTIN,
in her individual capacity and in her official capacity
as Judge of the Lamar County Probate Court,
USCA11 Case: 22-13444 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024 Page: 1 of 22

-- 1 of 22 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-13444
WILLIAM HITCHENS,
in his official capacity
as Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety,
CHRIS WRIGHT,
in his individual capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 3:21-cv-00036-DHB-BKE
____________________
Before WILSON, J ILL PRYOR , and B RASHER , Circuit Judges.
B RASHER , Circuit Judge:
The question in this appeal is whether three young Geor-
gians and the Firearms Policy Coalition can sue Georgia’s Commis-
sioner of Public Safety and several probate judges over the consti-
tutionality of a state gun law. The three individual plaintiffs want
to carry firearms, but the state won’t let them until they are
twenty-one years old. With help from the FPC, they sued three
county probate judges (who issue carry licenses) and Georgia’s
Commissioner of Public Safety (who designs the carry license ap-
plication form). The district court concluded that they lacked
standing to sue any of the defendants and that the case was both
moot and unripe.
USCA11 Case: 22-13444 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024 Page: 2 of 22

-- 2 of 22 --

22-13444 Opinion of the Court 3
We believe the district court partially erred. Although no
plaintiff has standing to sue the Commissioner, the plaintiffs do
have standing to sue the judges. And the case is neither moot nor
unripe for the gun rights group and at least one of the individual
plaintiffs. In short, this case is justiciable. So we reverse in part and
remand for the district court to consider the merits.
I.
The FPC is an advocacy group that is “dedicated to promot-
ing the right to keep and bear arms.” Its membership includes three
Georgians: Christopher Baughcum, Zane Meyers, and Sophie
Long. When they filed suit, all three were at least eighteen and un-
der twenty-one. But only Baughcum remains under twenty-one.
All three individual plaintiffs allege that they want to carry
guns because they regularly face dangerous situations—from
working in high crime areas, to traveling with valuable equipment
in public areas alone, to running errands in high crime areas where
a plaintiff has faced harassment. But none has applied for a carry
license in Georgia.
When the plaintiffs filed suit, Georgia’s weapons carry li-
censing regime was fairly straightforward. The state required peo-
ple to obtain licenses to carry weapons, Ga. Code § 16-11-126(h)(1)
(2021), and forbade those under twenty-one from obtaining li-
censes unless they were active duty or honorably discharged mem-
bers of the military, Ga. Code § 16-11-129(b)(2), which the three
individual plaintiffs here are not. Since then, Georgia’s licensing re-
quirements have changed. Now, the state no longer requires
USCA11 Case: 22-13444 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024 Page: 3 of 22

-- 3 of 22 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-13444
people to obtain licenses to carry weapons, so long as they are oth-
erwise eligible for a license. Id. § 16-11-126(g)(1); id. § 16-11-
125.1(2.1). But Georgia did not lift the bar on adults under the age
of twenty-one obtaining a license.
Some other important things also stayed the same across
both licensing regimes. County probate judges issue the licenses,
while Georgia’s Commissioner of Public Safety designs and fur-
nishes the blank application forms that the judges process. Id. § 16-
11-129(a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C)(iii). The Commissioner has a minimal
role in enforcing the criminal aspects of the law—he primarily
oversees Georgia’s highway patrol. The officers under his com-
mand are prohibited by statute from detaining people solely to in-
vestigate whether they are unlawfully carrying firearms. Id. § 16-
11-137.
The plaintiffs say that the age restrictions on carry licenses
prevent them from exercising their Second Amendment rights. So
they brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the deprivation of their
constitutional rights. Specifically, they sued three probate judges in
the counties where the individual plaintiffs live and the Commis-
sioner for a declaration that the age restriction is unconstitutional
and an injunction against its enforcement, along with costs, fees,
and expenses. This legal theory is not novel. See Lara v. Comm’r, Pa.
State Police, No. 21-1832, slip op. at 3–4 (3d. Cir. Jan. 18, 2024) (hold-
ing that a state ban on 18 to 20-year-olds carrying firearms outside
the home is unconstitutional).
USCA11 Case: 22-13444 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024 Page: 4 of 22

-- 4 of 22 --

22-13444 Opinion of the Court 5
But the district court concluded that the FPC and its three
members lacked standing against the judges and the Commissioner
because the members did not actually apply for and get denied any
licenses. The district court also concluded that the suit was moot
because the licensing regime change meant nobody needed li-
censes to carry weapons. And the court concluded that the suit was
unripe, again because the members did not apply for and get denied
licenses. The district court did not reach the merits of the chal-
lenge—whether the age restrictions to carry weapons violate the
Second Amendment.
This appeal followed. During this appeal, Chris Wright re-
tired as Georgia’s Commissioner of Public Safety and was replaced
by William Hitchens in all the official-capacity claims against the
Commissioner.
II.
We review the dismissal of a complaint for lack of jurisdic-
tion de novo, see Glynn Env’t Coal., Inc. v. Sea Island Acquisition, LLC,
26 F.4th 1235, 1240 (11th Cir. 2022), including for lack of standing,
see Scott v. Taylor, 470 F.3d 1014, 1017 (11th Cir. 2006), mootness,
see Hall v. Sec’y, Alabama, 902 F.3d 1294, 1297 (11th Cir. 2018), and
lack of ripeness, see Temple B’Nai Zion, Inc. v. City of Sunny Isles Beach,
727 F.3d 1349, 1356 (11th Cir. 2013).
III.
The judicial power of the United States extends only to ac-
tual cases and controversies. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 337
USCA11 Case: 22-13444 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024 Page: 5 of 22

-- 5 of 22 --

6 Opinion of the Court 22-13444
(2016) (citing U.S. Const. art. III). This case-and-controversy re-
quirement demands we can hear only justiciable matters, to prevent
us from “encroaching on the powers of the other branches of gov-
ernment” or deciding matters outside the “adversarial context.” So-
cialist Workers Party v. Leahy, 145 F.3d 1240, 1244 (11th Cir. 1998).
Though there are many related doctrines, a justiciability inquiry is
typically “composed of ‘three strands’: standing, ripeness, and
mootness.” Strickland v. Alexander, 772 F.3d 876, 883 (11th Cir.
2014) (quoting Leahy, 145 F.3d at 1244). “The failure of any one of
these strands can deprive a federal court of jurisdiction.” Id.
Here, all three strands of justiciability are contested. First,
the Commissioner and the probate judges argue that the plaintiffs
lack standing to sue them. They argue that they cannot provide
relief to the plaintiffs because the Commissioner does not grant li-
censes and the probate judges are immune. And the probate judges
argue that the plaintiffs were never injured because they never ap-
plied for weapons carry licenses. Second, because the plaintiffs
never applied, the probate judges argue and the district court con-
cluded that the case is not ripe. Third, the probate judges argue and
the district court concluded that the case is moot because now
Georgia does not require that people have licenses to carry weap-
ons, so long as they are eligible for licenses. Finally, another moot-
ness issue has arisen while the case has been pending on appeal:
two of the individual plaintiffs have reached the age of twenty-one
and are now eligible for a license under Georgia law. We will ad-
dress each of these strands of justiciability in turn.
USCA11 Case: 22-13444 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024 Page: 6 of 22

-- 6 of 22 --

22-13444 Opinion of the Court 7
A.
We will start with standing. Courts have jurisdiction to hear
a case only when the plaintiff has standing to sue. See Lujan v. Defs.
of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). To have standing, an individual
plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact, fairly traceable to the
defendant, that the court can redress with an order directed at the
defendant. Id. at 560–61. The individual plaintiffs here, Baughcum,
Meyers, and Long, argue that they have been injured by the de-
fendants’ enforcement of Georgia’s allegedly unconstitutional gun
permitting law because it has prevented them from carrying weap-
ons for their own protection.
Organizations, like individuals, may have standing to sue on
their own behalf, but organizations may also have associational
standing to sue on behalf of their members. The FPC argues that it
has associational standing to bring the claims in this lawsuit. To
benefit from associational standing, the FPC must establish three
elements: the FPC’s members must otherwise have standing to
sue, the interests the lawsuit seeks to protect must be germane to
the FPC’s purpose, and the claim can be resolved and the requested
relief granted without the participation of individual members.
Dream Defs. v. Governor of Fla., 57 F.4th 879, 886 (11th Cir. 2023).
Two of the three elements for organizational standing are
undisputed, and rightfully so. The interests at stake in this law-
suit—Second Amendment rights—are germane to the FPC’s pur-
pose as an organization. And the suit—a facial Second Amendment
challenge seeking an injunction against the enforcement of a state
USCA11 Case: 22-13444 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024 Page: 7 of 22

-- 7 of 22 --

8 Opinion of the Court 22-13444
law—does not require the FPC’s individual members to partici-
pate.
The only disputed question is whether the FPC has mem-
bers that would otherwise have standing, such as the individual
plaintiffs, to sue on their own behalf. Thus, for both the FPC’s as-
sociational standing and the standing of its three individual mem-
bers, the question turns on whether the individual members suf-
fered an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the defendant and
that can be redressed by a court’s order directed at the defendant.
Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. We believe they have.
1.
The plaintiffs argue that they have been injured, and will
continue to be injured, by the threat of enforcement of an arguably
unconstitutional law. We agree.
An injury in fact must be concrete and particularized and ac-
tual or imminent, rather than conjectural or hypothetical. Lujan,
504 U.S. at 560. A concrete injury is one that “actually exist[s]” and
is “real” rather than “abstract.” Spokeo, 578 U.S. at 340 (citations
omitted). A particularized injury is one that “affect[s] the plaintiff
in a personal and individual way.” Id. at 339 (citation omitted). An
actual or imminent injury, unlike a conjectural or hypothetical one,
is one which has occurred, is certainly impending, or has substan-
tial risk of occurring. See Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S.
149, 158 (2014). “A plaintiff satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement
where he alleges an intention to engage in a course of conduct ar-
guably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a
USCA11 Case: 22-13444 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024 Page: 8 of 22

-- 8 of 22 --

22-13444 Opinion of the Court 9
statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereun-
der.” Id. at 159 (cleaned up).
At the time this suit was filed, all three individual plaintiffs
satisfied the injury-in-fact requirement. They each alleged that they
intended to carry weapons, implicating Second Amendment inter-
ests. But they were proscribed from carrying weapons by Georgia
law. The relevant statute says that “no person shall carry a weapon
unless he or she is a lawful weapons carrier.” Ga. Code § 16-11-
126(g)(1). A “lawful weapons carrier” is “any person who is licensed
or eligible for a license . . . .” Id. § 16-11-125.1(2.1). A person is not
eligible for a license if he is under twenty-one, unless he is at least
eighteen and either an active duty or honorably discharged mem-
ber of the military. Id. § 16-11-129(b)(2)(A). The individual plaintiffs
were not licensed to carry weapons. Nor were they eligible for li-
censes. They were each under twenty-one at the time of suit, and
none had served in the military.
And, of course, there exists a credible threat of prosecution.
Georgia prohibits unlicensed (or, now, ineligible) carrying of weap-
ons. Even cursory research shows Georgia’s history of enforcing
this law. See Watkins v. State, 695 S.E.2d 394, 396–97 (Ga. Ct. App.
2010); Jordan v. State, 304 S.E.2d 522, 523–24 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983);
Asberry v. State, 234 S.E.2d 847, 848 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977). We can
expect that, if the plaintiffs violate the law and carry a weapon
when they are not eligible for a weapons carry license, they will
face legal consequences. Being forced to choose between suffering
USCA11 Case: 22-13444 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024 Page: 9 of 22

-- 9 of 22 --

10 Opinion of the Court 22-13444
criminal punishment or giving up a constitutional right is an injury
in fact.
2.
The defendants argue that, even if the individual plaintiffs
have suffered a cognizable injury, the defendants are not responsi-
ble for it and cannot fix it. That is, they say that they have so little
to do with the enforcement or administration of Georgia’s firearm
laws that the injuries are not fairly traceable to them and are not
redressable by any court order against them. With respect to the
probate judges, we disagree. We conclude that the individual plain-
tiffs’ injuries are fairly traceable to and redressable by an order di-
rected to the probate judges. But we agree that the Commissioner
is too far removed from Georgia’s gun laws to be subject to this
suit.
An injury is fairly traceable to the defendant if it results from
the defendant’s action and is not the result of an independent action
of some third party. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. Likewise, an injury can
be redressed by the court when a decision for the plaintiff would
make it significantly more likely that he would obtain relief that
directly remedies his injury. Lewis v. Governor of Ala., 944 F.3d 1287,
1301 (11th Cir. 2019). And it must be the effect of the court’s judg-
ment on the defendant, rather than some third party, that redresses
the injury, whether directly or indirectly. Id.
The plaintiffs’ injuries are fairly traceable to the probate
judges and redressable by an order directed to them. The plaintiffs
challenge the inability of those under twenty-one to obtain
USCA11 Case: 22-13444 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024 Page: 10 of 22

-- 10 of 22 --

22-13444 Opinion of the Court 11
licenses. Probate judges are responsible for granting and denying
licenses. The individual plaintiffs have sued the probate judges in
their respective counties, who are responsible for issuing licenses
to them. So the injury is traceable to those probate judges. See Ga.
Latino All. for Hum. Rts. v. Governor of Ga., 691 F.3d 1250, 1260 & n.5
(11th Cir. 2012); Luckey v. Harris, 860 F.2d 1012, 1015 (11th Cir.
1988). And because the probate judges are responsible for issuing
licenses, the challenged action is also redressable by a court order
against them. The district court could, if the suit is ultimately mer-
itorious, order the probate judges to issue licenses to the plaintiffs
and the FPC’s similarly situated members despite the age limits in
state law.
For their part, the probate judges argue that a federal court
cannot redress the plaintiffs’ injuries with an injunction against
them because 42 U.S.C. § 1983 generally forbids an injunction
against “a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such of-
ficer’s judicial capacity.” They reason that, to the extent issuing a
carry license is a judicial function, any order the district court en-
tered against them could not legally redress the plaintiffs’ injuries
because the judges would be immune.
We disagree that the probate judges are acting in a judicial
capacity when issuing these carry licenses. Probate judges in Geor-
gia are explicitly tasked with “judicial and ministerial functions as
may be provided by law,” including “[p]erform[ing] county gov-
ernmental administration duties,” “[r]egister[ing] and permit[ting]
certain enterprises,” and “[i]ssu[ing] marriage licenses.” Ga. Code
USCA11 Case: 22-13444 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024 Page: 11 of 22

-- 11 of 22 --

12 Opinion of the Court 22-13444
§ 15-9-30(b). To determine whether a probate judge is exercising a
judicial or nonjudicial function, we must consult the relevant state
law for signs of judicial discretion. See Perkins v. U.S. Fid. & Guar.
Co., 433 F.2d 1303, 1304–05 (5th Cir. 1970).
Georgia’s law is pellucid. The Georgia Supreme Court has
expressly held that “processing a weapons carry license does not
involve the exercise of judicial power.” Roberts v. Cuthpert, 893
S.E.2d 73, 76, 82–84 (Ga. 2023). It is, instead, a ministerial function
that the legislature happened to assign to these judges. See id. at 82
(“Not by [a probate judge’s] title, but only by his acts, can the exact
capacity in which he appears ever be known upon any special oc-
casion.”(quoting Comer v. Ross, 28 S.E. 387, 387 (Ga. 1897))); see also
id. (citing Ga. Code § 15-9-30(b)). After all, the statute offers pro-
bate judges nothing in the way of discretion. If a person meets the
statutorily defined criteria, he gets a license. If not, he doesn’t.
When issuing these licenses, the probate judges act more like a mu-
nicipal clerk than a judicial decisionmaker.
Moving on to the Commissioner: the plaintiffs’ injuries are
not fairly traceable to him and not redressable by a court order
against him. An injury must be traceable to the defendant and re-
dressable by a court order against the defendant, not a third party.
Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560; Lewis, 944 F.3d at 1301. But the Commis-
sioner is not responsible for issuing licenses nor could he issue them
to the plaintiffs if ordered. As we just explained above, licensing
authority lies with the probate judges.
USCA11 Case: 22-13444 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024 Page: 12 of 22

-- 12 of 22 --

22-13444 Opinion of the Court 13
Undeterred, the plaintiffs offer two theories against the
Commissioner. Neither works.
The plaintiffs first argue that their injuries are fairly traceable
to and redressable by a court order against the Commissioner be-
cause of his statutory responsibility for designing the license appli-
cation form, which lists the age requirements. Our precedent fore-
closes that theory. In Jacobson v. Florida Secretary of State, we exam-
ined a law requiring ballots to first list candidates belonging to the
party of the last gubernatorial victor and then list the candidate
from the second-place party. 974 F.3d 1236, 1241 (11th Cir. 2020).
County supervisors were responsible for placing candidates in the
correct order, while the Secretary of State was to certify the nomi-
nees. Id. at 1253. The Democrats (the second-place party) lacked
standing to sue the Secretary, in part because their injury (consist-
ently being listed second) was not traceable to her role in certifying
the candidates but rather the local county supervisors’ role in plac-
ing them second. Id. Likewise, the injuries at issue here (not being
given licenses) are not traceable to the Commissioner’s decisions
about how to design the form, but rather the probate judges’ deci-
sions regarding licensure applications.
The plaintiffs argue otherwise, saying that unlike the Secre-
tary in Jacobson, the Commissioner here does directly design the rel-
evant document that the probate judges process. But they are miss-
ing the central point. Their claimed injury isn’t a bad form, but ra-
ther the restriction of licenses based on age itself. They cannot say
that the Commissioner’s form causes, even indirectly, the probate
USCA11 Case: 22-13444 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024 Page: 13 of 22

-- 13 of 22 --

14 Opinion of the Court 22-13444
judges to deny licenses. There is no reason to think that the probate
judges enforce the age restriction because of the form’s design, ra-
ther than their legal obligation under the statute. His control over
the form does not give the Commissioner the power to make the
probate judges license the plaintiffs.
The Commissioner’s lack of authority over the probate
judges distinguishes this case from out-of-circuit precedents that
suggest a plaintiff may have standing against a statewide defendant
who designs forms that local decisionmakers use to injure the
plaintiff. See Tex. Democratic Party v. Abbott, 978 F.3d 168, 179–80
(5th Cir. 2020); Henne v. Wright, 904 F.2d 1208, 1210–11 (8th Cir.
1990). In those cases, unlike this one, the statewide defendant cre-
ated outcome-determinative forms. The forms in both cases con-
strained the local decisionmakers—they were required to use the
challenged forms and their only responsibilities were to ensure that
the forms were accurately completed. Here, on the other hand, the
probate judges are independently charged with investigating any
applicant’s compliance with the criteria for a license set forth in the
statute and then issuing a license when an applicant meets those
criteria. Ga. Code § 16-11-129(b), (d).
Let us now move to the plaintiffs’ second theory of standing
against the Commissioner. They argue that the Commissioner is
the head of the Georgia State Patrol, a law enforcement agency that
could arrest the plaintiffs for carrying without a license, and that
the Commissioner could be ordered by a court to refrain from
making such arrests. In support of that argument, they cite Lara, in
USCA11 Case: 22-13444 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024 Page: 14 of 22

-- 14 of 22 --

22-13444 Opinion of the Court 15
which the Third Circuit recently held that similar plaintiffs, includ-
ing the FPC, had standing to sue the Commissioner of the Pennsyl-
vania State Police over a similar state law. See No. 21-1832, slip op.
at 32–35.
We disagree. Remember, the injury must be “likely, not
merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable
decision” against the defendant. 31 Foster Child. v. Bush, 329 F.3d
1255, 1263 (11th Cir. 2003). Two aspects of Georgia law make it
unlikely that the Commissioner would be responsible for enforcing
this law and thus highly speculative that any judgment against the
Commissioner would redress the plaintiffs’ injuries. First, unlike
the Commissioner in Lara, the Commissioner here is not tasked
with general law enforcement, but highway patrol in particular.1
Second, Georgia law prohibits officers from detaining people solely
to investigate whether they are lawful weapons carriers. Ga. Code
§ 16-11-137.
So, for the plaintiffs’ injury to be traceable to and redressable
by the Commissioner, a series of speculative events would need to
1 Compare Duties of a Trooper, PA Trooper, https://www.patrooper.com/du-
ties-of-a-trooper.html [https://perma.cc/DGF8-ELGW] (explaining that
“The Pennsylvania State Police is a full service agency. . . . PA State Troopers
provide primary police coverage . . . for over 60% of the Commonwealth’s
municipalities”), with About the Georgia State Patrol, Georgia Department of
Public Safety, https://dps.georgia.gov/divisions/georgia-state-patrol/about-
georgia-state-patrol [https://perma.cc/T587-TNT6] (noting that the Patrol
“focuse[s] primarily on the enforcement of traffic laws and investigation of
traffic crashes,” though it additionally supports other law enforcement agen-
cies in their efforts).
USCA11 Case: 22-13444 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024 Page: 15 of 22

-- 15 of 22 --

16 Opinion of the Court 22-13444
occur. First, the plaintiffs would need to be carrying weapons on
the highway, in a manner noticeable by the highway patrol. They
make no allegations in their complaint that suggest they intend to
carry weapons on a highway or that their carrying would be no-
ticeable to a highway patrolman. Second, the plaintiffs would need
to be doing something else unlawful to allow the highway patrol to
detain them for their carrying violation. Because Georgia law for-
bids it, we cannot presume the highway patrol would detain the
plaintiffs solely to enforce the firearms laws. See Bush, 329 F.3d at
1266 (holding that a future injury based on the occurrence of a “ran-
dom or unauthorized act[]”is “too speculative” for standing pur-
poses). And, again, the plaintiffs make no allegations about an in-
tent to do anything unlawful that would warrant an unrelated stop
by the highway patrol that could then lead to an investigation into
their carry status. The result is that the chain of events that runs
from the Commissioner to the enforcement of the challenged law
is far too speculative.
The bottom line is that the FPC and its members have stand-
ing to sue the probate judges but not the Commissioner.
3.
Finally, the probate judges argue that neither the FPC nor
its three individual members have standing to sue because no
member has applied for and been denied a license. Under well-es-
tablished caselaw, this fact does not matter. A plaintiff can satisfy
the injury-in-fact requirement even if his injury rests on a formal
application he did not submit when that formal application would
USCA11 Case: 22-13444 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024 Page: 16 of 22

-- 16 of 22 --

22-13444 Opinion of the Court 17
merely be a “futile gesture” and he was otherwise “able and ready”
to apply. Carney v. Adams, 592 U.S. 53, 66 (2020) (first citing Int’l
Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 365–66 (1977); and
then citing Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas, 458 U.S. 941, 944 n.2
(1982)).
Though the plaintiffs did not apply for licenses, any applica-
tion for a carry license would be a futile gesture because they do
not meet the state’s requirements for license holders. As the Su-
preme Court has explained, when a statute requires that the plain-
tiffs be denied “a permit had they applied for one[,] [t]heir failure
to apply therefore does not deprive them of standing to challenge
the legality of the” statute. Sporhase, 458 U.S. at 944 n.2.
For their part, the plaintiffs pleaded sufficient facts to estab-
lish that—but for their age—they are otherwise able and ready to
apply. Two of the three individual plaintiffs own firearms already,
with the other pleading that she would acquire one if given a li-
cense to carry. None has a history of violent behavior. All allege
that they regularly face dangerous situations for which they would
like to carry weapons. And all allege that the active enforcement of
the carry ban deters them from carrying weapons or even applying
for a license.
Relying on inapposite precedents, the probate judges argue
that there is no futility exception to standing. That argument is, of
course, incorrect. Instead, these authorities hold only that plaintiffs
cannot sue over policies or practices that are not the cause of their
injuries.
USCA11 Case: 22-13444 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024 Page: 17 of 22

-- 17 of 22 --

18 Opinion of the Court 22-13444
In Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163 (1972), for exam-
ple, a black man was refused service while visiting as a guest of a
white member of the Lodge. The Lodge had a white-only mem-
bership policy and a policy against serving non-white guests of
members. Id. at 165–66. The Court held that the plaintiff could not
sue over the lodge’s membership policies because he had never
sought to be a member and apparently did not assert that he ever
planned to be or wanted to be a member. Instead, because he had
sought to be served as a guest, the Court held that he had standing
to sue over the guest policies. Id. at 166–68. Unlike in Moose Lodge,
the plaintiffs here are suing over the enforcement of the policies
that prevent them from having weapons carry licenses, not policies
that have not and will not affect them.
Similarly, in Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984), a nation-
wide class of parents of black schoolchildren complained that the
IRS did not do enough to “deny tax-exempt status to racially dis-
criminatory private schools.” Id. at 739. The plaintiffs pointed to
two injuries caused by the beneficial tax-exempt status of racially
discriminatory schools. They said that they were harmed by “the
mere fact of Government financial aid to discriminatory private
schools” and that the existence of “racially discriminatory private
schools in their communities impair their ability to have their pub-
lic schools desegregated.” Id. at 752–53. The court held that the first
injury was not judicially cognizable, id. at 754, and that the second
injury was not traceable to the government’s conduct. Id. at 757.
Here, on the other hand, the plaintiffs’ injuries are judicially
USCA11 Case: 22-13444 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024 Page: 18 of 22

-- 18 of 22 --

22-13444 Opinion of the Court 19
cognizable, and the plaintiffs are challenging the enforcement of a
statute that has caused, and will continue to cause, those injuries.
Finally, the probate judges rely on one of our precedents in
support of their argument that the plaintiffs must apply for a li-
cense, even if futile, to gain standing. But that precedent, Swann v.
Sec’y, Ga., 668 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2012), is even further afield. Alt-
hough we addressed the Supreme Court’s futility caselaw in
Swann, we expressly did so only in the context of a post-enforce-
ment challenge. Id. at 1288–89. We held that a plaintiff challenging
the post-enforcement application of a statute had to meet the
standing requirements based on the facts as they had occurred, not
rely “on an imaginary set of facts” that could have occurred. Id. at
1289. We further explained that Swann could not invoke the Su-
preme Court’s futility caselaw because those “inapposite” authori-
ties “address pre-enforcement challenges to statutes.” Id. Here, un-
like in Swann, we face a quintessential pre-enforcement challenge.
In such challenges, the Supreme Court has long established a futil-
ity exception, as we recognized in Swann. See Carney, 592 U.S. at 66
(collecting cases).
Ultimately, we hold that there is standing for the FPC and
its affected members to sue the probate judges but not the Com-
missioner.
B.
With standing out of the way, let us now turn to ripeness
and mootness.
USCA11 Case: 22-13444 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024 Page: 19 of 22

-- 19 of 22 --

20 Opinion of the Court 22-13444
We will start with ripeness. A ripeness question requires us
to consider “whether there is sufficient injury to meet Article III’s
requirement of a case or controversy and, if so, whether the claim
is sufficiently mature, and the issues sufficiently defined and con-
crete, to permit effective decision-making by the court.” Elend v.
Basham, 471 F.3d 1199, 1211 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). In
cases involving pre-enforcement review, like this one, the standing
and ripeness analysis tend to converge. Id. at 1205. The plaintiffs’
claims are ripe for the same reasons they suffered an injury in fact.
Driehaus makes clear that the plaintiffs need not actually face pun-
ishment or prosecution to allege a justiciable injury in fact, so long
as they face a credible threat of punishment, 573 U.S. at 158–59,
which they do.
The defendants say and the district court concluded that the
plaintiffs’ claims are not ripe because they never applied for a weap-
ons license that was denied, nor are they facing any prosecution.
But, again, the plaintiffs need not actually apply for and be denied
a license to suffer a justiciable injury in fact. As Carney instructs, a
failure to apply can be overcome by facts that show such an appli-
cation would be futile, so long as the plaintiffs stood able and ready
to apply. See 592 U.S. at 65–66. An application for a license forbid-
den by state law would be futile, so the plaintiffs need not actually
apply to allege an injury in fact. See Sporhase, 458 U.S. at 945 n.2.
And, as discussed earlier, the plaintiffs here are able and ready to
apply. For similar reasons to those raised in our standing discus-
sion, the injury is ripe.
USCA11 Case: 22-13444 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024 Page: 20 of 22

-- 20 of 22 --

22-13444 Opinion of the Court 21
Now consider mootness. Courts have no jurisdiction to hear
a case when it is moot. See Fla. Ass’n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. Fla.
Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 225 F.3d 1208, 1216 (11th Cir. 2000).
“A case is moot when it no longer presents a live controversy with
respect to which the court can give meaningful relief.” Id. at 1217
(cleaned up).
There are two mootness questions here.
First, did the post-lawsuit changes to the licensing regime
render the plaintiffs’ claims moot? The probate judges argue and
the district court concluded that, because some people no longer
need licenses to carry weapons after those changes, this case is
moot. We disagree. The new licensing regime is a bifurcated one.
There are two ways one can carry a weapon. One is by being eligi-
ble for a license (as relevant here, by being over twenty-one). The
other is to obtain a license. So, after the changes to the licensing
regime, if someone is eligible for a license, it is a moot point
whether he can obtain one. Here, though, the underage plaintiffs
remain ineligible for a license because of the preexisting statutory
age limits. Although the statutory changes may affect other people,
they did not affect the plaintiffs or others under the age of twenty-
one—the only way they can carry a weapon is to get a license. Thus,
there is no doubt that a live controversy continues to exist, even
though the licensing regime has changed.
Second, because the case has been pending for so long, an-
other mootness question has arisen since the district court’s judg-
ment. Have the individual plaintiffs turned twenty-one while this
USCA11 Case: 22-13444 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024 Page: 21 of 22

-- 21 of 22 --

22 Opinion of the Court 22-13444
suit was pending, rendering their challenge moot? We are confi-
dent that the case is not moot—at least as to one of the individual
plaintiffs and the FPC. Although Meyer and Long have turned
twenty-one while this case has been pending, Baughcum is still
twenty. So his claim (and thus the FPC’s claim based on his mem-
bership in the organization) is not moot. Moreover, the FPC is a
large membership organization and says it has other eighteen-to
twenty-one-year-old members in Georgia, such that it continues to
have associational standing to litigate this suit. See Arcia v. Fla. Sec’y
of State, 772 F.3d 1335, 1342 (11th Cir. 2014) (stating that “large or-
ganizations like the NAACP had standing because there was a high
probability that at least one of the members would be” injured (cit-
ing Fla. State Conf. of N.A.A.C.P. v. Browning, 522 F.3d 1153, 1163
(11th Cir. 2008)). On remand, the district court may evaluate
whether any exception to mootness applies to Meyer’s and Long’s
claims against the probate judges, see, e.g., Lara, No. 21-1832, slip
op. at 30–31, and whether the FPC should make allegations about,
or introduce evidence of, additional members.
IV.
The district court is REVERSED IN PART AND
AFFIRMED IN PART. The matter is REMANDED for proceed-
ings consistent with this opinion.
USCA11 Case: 22-13444 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024 Page: 22 of 22

-- 22 of 22 --