Jennifer J. Miller v. Marc D. Smith

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued January 5, 2023
Decided January 20, 2023
Before
JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
No. 22-1482
JENNIFER J. MILLER, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
MARC D. SMITH, in his official capacity
as Acting Director of the Illinois
Department of Children and Family
Services, and KWAME RAOUL, in his
official capacity as Attorney General of
the State of Illinois,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois.
No. 3:18-cv-03085-SEM-TSH
Sue E. Myerscough,
Judge.
O R D E R
Appellants Darin and Jennifer Miller are both licensed foster home caretakers,
and Jennifer Miller is licensed to operate a home day care. Illinois statutes and
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 22-1482 Page 2
regulations restrict how the Millers may possess and store firearms and ammunition in
their home. The Millers challenge the constitutionality of those statutes and regulations.
The district court granted summary judgment for the State of Illinois, and the Millers
appealed.
After the Millers filed their opening brief, the Supreme Court decided New York
State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), in which the Court
ruled that means-end scrutiny does not apply in the Second Amendment context. Id. at
2126–30. The Court made more explicit the constitutional standard endorsed in District
of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), requiring courts to assess whether modern
firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical
understanding. Id. at 2131–34. After Bruen was published, briefing continued in this
case, and we heard oral argument.
We now remand for additional proceedings to receive the full benefit of the
district court’s decision applying the “text, history, and tradition” test of Bruen. On
remand, the district court should allow the parties to engage in further discovery,
including seeking additional expert reports. The district court should then evaluate any
subsequent motions under Bruen’s text, history, and tradition framework. In doing so,
the court should permit briefing on and consider the interaction of Bruen and the
unconstitutional conditions doctrine, including but not limited to the employment
context. See, e.g., NASA v. Nelson, 562 U.S. 134 (2011); Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agri.,
553 U.S. 591 (2008). The court should also allow discovery and briefing on the sensitive
places doctrine, and on any other matter that the court and the parties find relevant in
light of Bruen.
For these reasons, we VACATE the district court’s grant of summary judgment for
the State of Illinois and R EMAND for further proceedings consistent with this order.

-- 2 of 2 --