Robert Mahoney, et al. v. City of Seattle, Washington, et al.

Does the “core” right of self-defense guaranteed by the Second Amendment extend to police officers?

Can a public employer require its employees regularly to confront volatile, dangerous, life threatening subjects and circumstances, and at the same time regulate its public employees in a manner that unreasonably burdens and defeats their ability to defend themselves and innocent bystanders?

Is intermediate scrutiny a sufficient standard by which to measure a law enforcement agency’s use of force policy requirements that unreasonably burden and effectively destroy police officers’ ability to protect the lives of officers and the public they defend?

Did the Ninth Circuit misapply pleading standards of Bell Atlantic v. Twombly to uphold a use of force policy, in reliance on a scattershot recitation of policy provisions, at the same time disregarding the Officers’ detailed factual allegations demonstrating how the policy overall, and its contradictory and conflicting provisions, unreasonably burdens and effectively destroys officers’ right of self-defense?

Does the fundamental right of self-defense articulated in Heller and McDonald include the right of Officers to reasonably defend themselves and the public from life threatening dangers for purposes of substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment?