CIVIL RIGHTS UPDATE: “[P]etitioner’s Second Amendment rights are not dependent on her spouse’s acquisition of an unrestricted concealed carry pistol permit.”

The court’s main point was that, given the decision in Bruen, which came down while the appeal was pending, petitioner had a constitutionally protected right to carry, even without a showing of special need. But the court added:

To the extent that the Attorney General attempts, inexplicably, to justify the determination based upon petitioner’s “fail[ure] to explain why her stated self-defense needs were not already adequately and independently addressed by her husband’s recent acquisition of an unrestricted concealed carry license,” we note that this was not a basis for the denial of this application and “judicial review of an administrative determination is limited to the grounds invoked by” respondent.

More to the point, the statutory framework contains no such required showing and, suffice it to say that petitioner’s Second Amendment rights are not dependent on her spouse’s acquisition of an unrestricted concealed carry pistol permit.

Kind of a sexist argument to make, too.