UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JANE DOE, an individual; JOHN No. 23-55133 DOE, No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, individuals, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00010- Plaintiffs-Appellants, LAB-DEB v. ROB BONTA, in his official capacity OPINION as Attorney General of the State of California; DOES, 1-25, inclusive,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 9, 2024 Pasadena, California

Filed May 8, 2024

Before: Mary M. Schroeder, Patrick J. Bumatay, and Salvador Mendoza, Jr., Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Schroeder 2 DOE V. BONTA

SUMMARY *

Right to Informational Privacy/Second Amendment

The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by five registered California gun owners who challenged California legislation aimed at encouraging research on firearm violence that permits the California Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to disseminate information from its databases to accredited research institutions about purchasers of firearms and ammunition, as well as persons who hold permits to carry concealed weapons (“CCWs”). Assembly Bill 173 (“AB 173”) requires the DOJ to provide information which is largely biographical and similar to that found in other public registries to a research center at the University of California-Davis and gives the DOJ discretion to disseminate this information to other accredited research institutions. The panel held that plaintiffs did not state a claim for violation of the right to informational privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment. The personal information that the DOJ is statutorily required to retain in its databases related to purchasers of firearms and ammunition and applicants for CWW permits is not intimate personal information that would implicate the right to privacy. Plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation that such information would never be disclosed.

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. DOE V. BONTA 3

Plaintiffs did not state a claim for violation of the Second Amendment. Permitting gun owners’ information to be shared under strict privacy protection protocols for legitimate research purposes does not restrict conduct covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs did not state a due process claim that AB 173 is unconstitutionally retroactive. AB 173 creates no new cause of action, remedy, or liability for past applications and purchases, but rather provides only for a limited distribution of information. Finally, the panel rejected plaintiffs’ claim that the Privacy Act, which requires state agencies to communicate certain information when they request social security numbers (“SSNs”) from individuals, preempts two California statutes, Cal. Penal Code §§ 26175, 11106(d), relating to applications for CCW permits. Although a prior version of the State’s CCW application form did request applicants’ SSNs, the State’s current form no longer does so, and the statutes plaintiffs cite do not require SSN disclosure. Accordingly, there is no conflict with the Privacy Act.

COUNSEL Cameron J. Schlagel (argued), Colin R. Higgins, and Michael B. Reynolds, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Costa Mesa, California for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Sebastian Brady (argued), Deputy Attorney General; Paul Stein, Supervising Deputy Attorney General; Thomas S. Patterson, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Rob Bonta,