A federal judge dismissed part of New York’s “sensitive places” law in a ruling on Wednesday, suggesting that he was skeptical about the law’s chances of surviving Supreme Court scrutiny.
This law was created following the June 2022 Bruen decision, which ruled that the discretionary issuance of concealed carry permits was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. In his ruling, Senior U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby, appointed by George W. Bush, invalidated the state’s ban on carrying firearms in unsecured areas of airports, arguing that it would likely not stand up to Supreme Court challenges.
Suddaby noted, “The Court must candidly acknowledge that it is conceivable or even likely that certain rulings of the Second Circuit in Antonyuk II may be overruled by the Supreme Court based on its intervening decisions,” emphasizing that the challenged provisions don’t exist in isolation and that numerous other provisions prohibit concealed carry.
LEGAL ALERT: A New York federal judge has struck down the state’s ban on firearms in unsecured areas of airports while upholding multiple other location carry bans, saying that while “it is conceivable or even likely that certain rulings of the Second Circuit” will not hold up to… pic.twitter.com/Rrn8fXuzSQ
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) September 30, 2026
He continued, stating that it’s challenging for the court to conclude that the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) complies with the Supreme Court’s declaration that a state’s law cannot impose overly broad bans on firearm carriage, as the CCIA restricts concealed carry in many specific locations, effectively making it difficult to carry in most places.
In June, the Supreme Court ruled that Hawaii’s requirement for private property owners to post signs if they allowed concealed carry was unconstitutional. This was part of legislation similar to New York’s “sensitive places” law, which came after the Bruen decision.
Although Suddaby upheld some other restrictions, he mentioned that he thought those limits might also struggle under Supreme Court review.
He concluded with a note that while some decisions from the Second Circuit in Antonyuk II could potentially be overturned by the Supreme Court, his court must adhere to those rulings unless the Supreme Court’s new decisions clearly undermine them, making it likely that the Second Circuit would overrule them.
