Involuntary Commitment and Right to Possess Firearms

Facts of the Case

Mr. Escamilla served in the United States Army and was stationed at Fort Drum in New York. In March 2018, during an on-base medical appointment, he reported command auditory hallucinations to kill himself and was referred to an on-base psychologist. The psychologist recommended that he go to Samaritan Hospital (Samaritan), a local civilian hospital, for treatment. He agreed and was escorted to the emergency room by Fort Drum personnel. Once there, he was involuntarily admitted to an inpatient psychiatric unit for safety and stabilization on the examining physician's certification that the admission was warranted pursuant to N.Y. Mental Hyg. Law § 9.39 (2018) because of his psychotic symptoms, depression, and suicidal ideation with plans to hang or stab himself. A psychiatrist examined him the next day and confirmed the need for continued psychiatric hospitalization due to elevated risk of physical harm to himself. Mr. Escamilla was cooperative with the admission process and did not challenge his 11-day psychiatric hospitalization; in fact, the discharge summary indicated that he wanted to prolong his stay. Subsequently, the hospitalization was reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) database, which the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) uses in determining if a prospective gun buyer is eligible to purchase a firearm.

In July 2019, approximately one year after his hospitalization, Mr. Escamilla attempted to purchase a handgun from a firearms retailer. The gun transfer was denied under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) (2018) because his background check identified him as a person who had been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. He filed suit against the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 925 (2018), which allows an individual who is denied a firearm to bring an action against the government for an order directing that the gun transfer be approved. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment to the government, holding that Mr. Escamilla's emergency psychiatric admission under N.Y. Mental Hyg. Law § 9.39 was a gun-disqualifying commitment within the meaning of § 922(g)(4). Mr. Escamilla appealed and challenged the district court's application of the federal firearm prohibition on the basis that his inpatient admission was voluntary because he wanted to be hospitalized.

Ruling and Reasoning

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the lower court judgment de novo, construing the record in the light most favorable to Mr. Escamilla. In a case of first impression in the Seventh Circuit, the court ruled that a psychiatric admission under N.Y. Mental Hyg. Law § 9.39 constitutes a formal commitment under the Gun Control Act. The opinion focused on two principal topics. The first involved the interplay between federal gun prohibitions and state commitment laws in defining a prohibited class of persons with a history of commitment who are federally barred from possessing firearms. The second considered what procedural due process safeguards are necessary to deprive a person of the constitutional right to bear arms.

The court held that judicial determination of what constitutes commitment to a mental institution is a question of federal law. Although the Gun Control Act does not define the phrase “committed to a mental institution,” federal regulations clarify that “a formal commitment … by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority” is necessary before a federal firearm prohibition is incurred (27 C.F.R. § 478.11 (2018)); notably, a formal commitment includes involuntary hospitalizations, but not voluntary or observational admissions.

To answer the federal law question, as a threshold matter, the Seventh Circuit deferred to New York state law that controlled Mr. Escamilla's psychiatric hospitalization. Mr. Escamilla was admitted to Samaritan pursuant to N.Y. Mental Hyg. Law § 9.39, which governs emergency civil commitment of individuals who pose a threat of serious harm to themselves or others. The court noted that his admission procedure conformed with the statutory requirements in N.Y. Mental Hyg. Law § 9.39. The appellate court rejected Mr. Escamilla's argument that his cooperativeness with treatment rendered the admission voluntary; instead, it joined the Second Circuit and New York courts in characterizing admissions under N.Y. Mental Hyg. Law § 9.39 as involuntary based on safety concerns. As the court noted, an involuntary hospitalization ensured that Mr. Escamilla could not suddenly change his mind, leave the hospital, and harm himself or someone else. In contrast, if he were admitted on a voluntary basis under N.Y. Mental Hyg. Law § 9.13, the hospital would be required to “promptly release” him if he requested to be discharged.

The Seventh Circuit rejected Mr. Escamilla's argument that judicial intervention is required to transform an emergency admission into a formal commitment; instead, it joined the Second Circuit in characterizing “other lawful authority” as sufficient for the purposes of § 922(g)(4). The court held that the New York legislature, through N.Y. Mental Hyg. Law § 9.39, delegated lawful authority to the hospital director (through hospital staff) to commit individuals with an alleged mental illness or who present a safety threat to themselves or others. It additionally noted that Mr. Escamilla had the right to avail himself of an administrative remedy by providing a written request to the hospital director.

The court affirmed Mr. Escamilla's federal firearm prohibition due to his status as a person who was involuntarily committed to a mental institution by lawful authority pursuant to the Gun Control Act.