Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantstatuteinjunctionmotiondiscriminationcitizenship
defendantstatuteinjunctionmotiondiscriminationcitizenship

Related Cases

Jama v. United States
View Case »
United States v. Frutos-Lopez
View Case »
Galvez Pineda v. Gonzales
View Case »
Onikoyi v. Gonzales
View Case »
U.S. Bates; U.S. v.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Smith v. South Dakota

Facts

Smith emigrated from the United Kingdom to the United States over 30 years ago when he was 15 years old. He has been a resident of the United States since 1979 and is currently a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Smith has previously applied for and obtained a permit to carry a concealed weapon in South Dakota. On July 6, 2010, Smith reapplied in Minnehaha County for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The Minnehaha County Sheriff's Office denied Smith's application because he was not a United States citizen as required by SDCL 23-7-7.1(8).

Smith emigrated from the United Kingdom to the United States over 30 years ago when he was 15 years old. He has been a resident of the United States since 1979 and is currently a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Smith has previously applied for and obtained a permit to carry a concealed weapon in South Dakota. On July 6, 2010, Smith reapplied in Minnehaha County for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The Minnehaha County Sheriff's Office denied Smith's application because he was not a United States citizen as required by SDCL 23-7-7.1(8).

Issue

Whether the denial of a permit to carry a concealed weapon to a lawful permanent resident based on the requirement of U.S. citizenship under S.D. Codified Laws 23-7-7.1(8) is constitutional.

Whether the denial of a permit to carry a concealed weapon to a lawful permanent resident based on the requirement of U.S. citizenship under S.D. Codified Laws 23-7-7.1(8) is constitutional.

Rule

Generally speaking, states are allowed to enact statutes that discriminate between people based on numerous criteria without violating the Constitution, and such discrimination is reviewed according to the rational basis test. When a state discriminates against a suspect class, however, courts review the discrimination according to the 'strict scrutiny' test.

Generally speaking, states are allowed to enact statutes that discriminate between people based on numerous criteria without violating the Constitution, and such discrimination is reviewed according to the rational basis test. When a state discriminates against a suspect class, however, courts review the discrimination according to the 'strict scrutiny' test.

Analysis

The court found that SDCL 23-7-7.1(8) explicitly discriminates on the basis of alienage because it allows only United States citizens to obtain a temporary permit. The court noted that classifications based on alienage are considered 'suspect' for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause, and therefore, the statute must survive strict scrutiny. The court concluded that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the citizenship requirement was narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest.

The court found that SDCL 23-7-7.1(8) explicitly discriminates on the basis of alienage because it allows only United States citizens to obtain a temporary permit. The court noted that classifications based on alienage are considered 'suspect' for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause, and therefore, the statute must survive strict scrutiny. The court concluded that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the citizenship requirement was narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest.

Conclusion

The court granted Smith's motion for a permanent injunction, ruling that the enforcement of the U.S. citizenship requirement in SDCL 23-7-7.1(8) against him was unconstitutional.

The court granted Smith's motion for a permanent injunction, ruling that the enforcement of the U.S. citizenship requirement in SDCL 23-7-7.1(8) against him was unconstitutional.

Who won?

Wayne Smith prevailed in the case because the court found that the citizenship requirement was unconstitutional as applied to him, failing to meet the strict scrutiny standard.

Wayne Smith prevailed in the case because the court found that the citizenship requirement was unconstitutional as applied to him, failing to meet the strict scrutiny standard.

You must be