Justice Department Sues Glendale, California, Over Concealed Carry Costs of Up to $2,000

The Justice Department sued Glendale, California, on November 9, 2026, alleging in a complaint that concealed carry license costs of up to $2,000 for a first-time applicant violate the Second Amendment.

The case, United States v. City of Glendale, No. 2:26-cv-13098, was filed in the Central District of California. It carries one claim under 34 U.S.C. § 12601, which lets the Attorney General sue to stop a pattern or practice of law enforcement conduct that deprives people of constitutional rights. The complaint went out over the names of Attorney General Todd Blanche and Acting Assistant Attorney General Jesus A. Osete and was signed by Barry K. Arrington, chief of the Civil Rights Division’s Second Amendment Section.

Glendale police issue licenses under California’s “shall issue” system, in which the department must grant a license once an applicant meets state requirements such as being 21 and finishing an approved training course. The department’s own application page lists a $1,078 fee for an initial license, half due on submission and half after approval, and $826 for a renewal, split the same way. The complaint adds the other costs that page lists.

Those totals leave out the fingerprint providers’ rolling fees, the complaint says. Renewed licenses are valid for two years, so it puts the cost at about $54.17 a month. It sets that against Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections (1966), which struck down a $1.50 poll tax, about $15.65 today or roughly $1.30 a month.

Glendale’s application has 15 steps. They include three reference checks, an interview, a review of publicly available information including social media posts, and a psychological evaluation. Initial applicants take a 16-hour training course and range qualification. Renewing applicants take an eight-hour course.

The government’s theory rests on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court’s June 23, 2022 decision that struck down New York’s “proper cause” requirement, which made carry applicants show a special need for self-protection. Footnote 9 of Bruen said shall-issue schemes with narrow, objective standards may stand, but not if “put toward abusive ends,” and it named “exorbitant fees.” The complaint also cites Wolford v. Lopez (2026) for the two-step test and says Glendale charges “by far, the highest fees in the nation.”

Reference checks, the social media review and the psychological exam, it says, “convert its shall-issue scheme into a may-issue one.” A psychological exam is “just the type of ‘constitutionally problematic’ requirement” because it invites “open-ended discretion,” the complaint says, citing Justice Kavanaugh’s Bruen concurrence for those phrases. It also cites Antonyuk v. James, where the Second Circuit in 2024 enjoined a New York requirement that applicants disclose social media account names.

California law allows a renewal psychological assessment “only if there is compelling evidence of a public safety concern.” Glendale’s policy, the complaint says, “appears to impose a blanket requirement” for all renewal applicants.

On residency requirements, the complaint cites a stipulated judgment in Solinsky v. Lopez in Hawaii, plus Higbie v. James (N.D.N.Y. 2025) and Hoffman v. Bonta (S.D. Cal. 2025). In the Hawaii judgment, entered April 15, 2026, the state consented without admitting liability and agreed to $35,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

The government asks for a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction against the fees, the time demanded of applicants, the psychiatric exam, reference checks, social media review and residency requirement. It also wants Glendale to write to everyone it denied a license under those provisions, saying the denial “may have” been improper and inviting them to reapply. Glendale would have to offer back the psychological exams and social media reviews it collected and destroy any not returned.

Harmeet Dhillon, then the assistant attorney general for civil rights, wrote on X on October 28 that Glendale “cannot impose unconstitutional $2,000 costs to obtain a concealed carry permit for lawful firearms” and that the division “gave them one week to fix it.” The complaint followed 12 days later.

It is the department’s second fee suit against a California city this fall. The United States sued San Jose on September 16, 2026, in the Northern District of California, No. 5:26-cv-10508, over a $1,591 application fee, and San Jose’s November 2 answer admits the fee set by its Resolution 2026-183 while denying the allegations.

California’s AB 1948, which the complaint notes lets a license run up to three years, takes effect January 1, 2027. Glendale has not said whether its two-year licenses will run a third year, the complaint says.

Glendale’s answer is due 21 days after it is served with the complaint. No hearing had been set as of November 11, 2026.