DOJ Challenges Virgin Islands’ Firearm Restrictions in Landmark Lawsuit

On December 16, 2025, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a major lawsuit in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, St. Thomas and St. John Division, against the Government of the Virgin Islands, the Virgin Islands Police Department (VIPD), and Police Commissioner Mario Brooks. The Justice Department accuses the defendants of systematically violating the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens through unconstitutional policies and practices related to firearm licensing. The complaint, spanning 12 pages, seeks declaratory and equitable relief under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to restore these fundamental human rights.

The lawsuit hinges on the assertion that the Second Amendment, affirmed as a “fundamental right” by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms both at home and in public for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. This right, extended to the Virgin Islands under 48 U.S.C. § 1561, has been upheld in cases such as McDonald v. City of Chicago and District of Columbia v. Heller. However, the U.S. alleges that the Virgin Islands defendants have defied these rulings, rendering the constitutional right to bear arms “a virtual nullity” within the U.S. territory.

Justice Department Sues the Virgin Islands Police Department for Unconstitutional Practices Resulting in Effective Denials of Gun Permits

“This Civil Rights Division will protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens,” said @AAGDhillon. “The newly-established… pic.twitter.com/ai8M1t7Fqh

— DOJ Civil Rights Division (@CivilRights) December 16, 2025

Central to the complaint are several specific grievances. The VIPD, under Commissioner Brooks’ supervision since January 23, 2025, enforces laws that require applicants to submit to warrantless home searches and to install safes bolted to their floors or walls as conditions for obtaining a firearm permit. These requirements, deemed unconstitutional by Heller, which struck down similar restrictions, impose significant financial burdens and privacy invasions. Additionally, the processing of applications is delayed by several months to a year, with no probable cause to justify home inspections. Non-compliance results in de facto denials, further obstructing citizens’ rights.

The complaint outlines three counts of violation under 34 U.S.C. § 12601. Count I addresses “Unconstitutional Conditions,” arguing that requiring warrantless searches and safe installations violates the Second Amendment by conditioning the right to bear arms on waiving constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and imposing financial expenditures. Count II, “Unreasonable Delays,” highlights excessive wait times and the lack of status updates, which deny applicants timely access to firearms and compel them to administrative exhaustion. Finally, count III, “Unconstitutional ‘Proper Reason’ Requirement,” challenges the Virgin Islands’ law, mirroring the New York statute struck down in Bruen, which mandates applicants prove a “proper reason” for carrying a firearm, a discretion left entirely to the Commissioner.

The regulatory framework in the Virgin Islands exacerbates these issues. Possession of a firearm is a crime unless licensed, with permits valid for three years and tied to specific firearms, and permits require annual inspections. The undefined “good moral character” and “proper reason” criteria allow arbitrary denials, while penalties for unlicensed possession include up to 10 years’ imprisonment and fines of $10,000 to $15,000. These stringent measures, combined with the VIPD’s pattern of denying licenses to those with “too many” firearms, create a formidable barrier to exercising Second Amendment rights.

Factual allegations, based on accounts from multiple permit applicants, detail the arduous process. Applicants must provide a purpose for ownership, undergo mandatory home inspections without legal justification, and install costly safes even in shared households. The VIPD’s reliance on “character vouchers” and its discretionary power to define “proper reason” further conditions rights on external approval, contradicting Bruen’s rejection of “special need” requirements.

The U.S. seeks a declaration that these practices violate federal law, a permanent injunction against implementing offending Virgin Islands statutes in this manner, and additional relief as justice requires. This action underscores a broader effort to ensure that law enforcement practices align with constitutional protections, particularly in territories where local policies may diverge from federal standards.

The lawsuit’s timing, filed on the same day as its documentation, reflects the urgency of addressing these alleged violations. Led by U.S. Attorney Adam Sleeper and Assistant U.S. Attorney Angela P. Tyson-Floyd, with support from the Civil Rights Division under Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, the case pits federal authority against territorial governance. The outcome could set a precedent for the administration of Second Amendment rights across U.S. territories, potentially reshaping firearm licensing nationwide.

For residents of the Virgin Islands, this case represents a critical juncture. The alleged bureaucratic hurdles and unconstitutional conditions have long frustrated law-abiding citizens’ ability to defend themselves, a right the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed. As the legal battle unfolds, it will test the balance between the U.S. Virgin Islands government’s wants and individual liberties, with implications that may extend beyond the Caribbean to the mainland United States.

This lawsuit is a bold assertion of federal oversight to protect constitutional rights in the Virgin Islands. By challenging the VIPD’s practices, the U.S. aims to dismantle what it describes as a coordinated effort to nullify Second Amendment protections through unconstitutional means. As the case progresses, it will likely draw significant attention from legal scholars, gun rights advocates, and policymakers, offering a potential roadmap for resolving similar disputes elsewhere.

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.