Justice Department Sues Glendale, Calif., Over $2,000 Concealed Carry Permits, Using the 1994 Law a Maryland Judge Rejected the Same Day

The Justice Department has sued the city of Glendale, California, alleging that its concealed carry permit process is so expensive and open-ended that it violates the Second Amendment. The Digital Free Press read the 15-page complaint, filed Monday, Nov. 9, in federal court in Los Angeles. It puts the total cost of a first-time permit at about $2,000.

The complaint, United States v. City of Glendale, No. 2:26-cv-13098, rests on the same 1994 police misconduct statute that a federal judge in Maryland ruled the same day could not be used to challenge Montgomery County's gun law.

What the Complaint Says Glendale Charges

According to the complaint, the Glendale Police Department charges first-time applicants a $1,078 fee, half when they apply and half after approval. Renewals cost $826. Applicants also pay for fingerprinting, including a $93 state fee, a required training course and range qualification the complaint estimates at about $300 to $435, and a psychological evaluation at about $500.

The department says that adds up to roughly $2,000 for a first permit and about $1,300 for each renewal, which must be repeated every two years. "In other words, Glendale charges its residents approximately $54.17 per month to exercise a fundamental constitutional right," the complaint says. It compares that with the $1.50 poll tax the Supreme Court struck down in 1966, which it says equals about $15.65 today. The complaint also claims the city "charges, by far, the highest fees in the nation."

A Justice Department release said the city charged only $100 for first-time applicants and $25 for renewals in the previous fiscal year. That comparison appears in the release, not in the complaint.

Why the Department Says the Concealed Carry Process Is Unconstitutional

The complaint lists 15 steps, including three reference checks, an interview, a review of public social media posts and a 16-hour training course. It argues that the reference checks, the social media review and the psychological exam "convert its shall-issue scheme into a may-issue one," the kind of discretionary system the Supreme Court rejected in its 2022 Bruen decision. It also challenges a residency requirement.

The department asks the court to declare that the city's police are engaged in a "pattern or practice" of unconstitutional conduct and to bar enforcement of the fees, the psychological exam, the reference checks, the social media review and the residency rule.

"The City of Glendale cannot impose unreasonable fees and unbridled discretion that undermines that core constitutional right," Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Jesus Osete said in the release. The complaint lists Attorney General Todd Blanche and Bill Essayli, the First Assistant U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, among the government's lawyers.

The Same Law, a Different Result in Maryland

The suit is brought under 34 U.S.C. Section 12601, which lets the attorney general sue over a "pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers" that deprives people of constitutional rights. The complaint argues that when Glendale police enforce the fees, they engage in exactly that.

On the same day, U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang in Maryland dismissed the department's Section 12601 suit against Montgomery County, writing that its reading of the law "would effect a breathtakingly broad expansion of federal power," as The Digital Free Press reported. That ruling does not bind the court in California.

The Glendale complaint also offers a second basis for the suit: it says the United States may sue as "parens patriae," on behalf of its citizens, citing a 1923 Supreme Court case.

The complaint is the government's account. As of Tuesday morning, the court docket showed only the department's opening filings, and the city had not filed a response.

Sources: Complaint, United States v. City of Glendale, California, No. 2:26-cv-13098 (C.D. Cal.), Dkt. 1, filed Nov. 9, 2026 (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.1047134/gov.uscourts.cacd.1047134.1.0.pdf); case docket (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/75091830/united-states-v-city-of-glendale-california/); U.S. Department of Justice press release, Nov. 9, 2026 (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-city-glendale-california-violating-citizens-second-amendment-rights); Memorandum Opinion, United States v. Montgomery County, Maryland, No. 8:26-cv-03025-TDC (D. Md.), Dkt. 39 (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.610102/gov.uscourts.mdd.610102.39.0_1.pdf). Cover photo: Glendale City Hall, by Vahe Martirosyan, via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0).