DOJ Slams Blue-Cities $1,591 Gun Fee

Assorted firearms and ammunition laid out on a wooden table — Photo: Cascadia_J / Shutterstock

The Justice Department just turned a city fee into a constitutional fight, and the price tag is $1,591.

Quick Take

The Justice Department sued San Jose over a nearly $1,600 concealed-carry application fee.
Federal lawyers say the fee makes it impractical for ordinary people to exercise a right.
San Jose says the charge simply covers staff time and overhead with auditable costs.
The Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling sets the backdrop for what “too much” looks like.

DOJ’s Case: A Price Wall Around a Right

The Department of Justice filed suit against San Jose and its police department on September 16, 2026. The complaint claims the city’s $1,591 concealed-carry license application fee sets an unreasonable barrier to a core constitutional right. Federal lawyers argue the fee makes carry “impractical if not impossible” for typical residents. The filing anchors its theory in Supreme Court cases on the Second Amendment and warns that “exorbitant” charges cannot fence out law-abiding citizens.

The Justice Department previewed this move days earlier. A notice letter from Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said litigation was authorized and framed the fee as an “abusive” charge that denies the right to public carry. That signal showed the department’s civil rights posture: fees can recover real processing costs, but they cannot tax a liberty. The letter also set a clean contrast between routine administration and a practical ban by pricing.

What San Jose Charges, and Why the Number Matters

San Jose lists the initial application fee at $1,591 on its own permit page. The police department also states that the city fee is separate from state fees and that the applicant must pay for a required psychological exam and training course directly to vendors. The city’s published policy requires a separate nonrefundable payment to cover processing, citing state penal code authority. These documents confirm the local component and the extra vendor costs applicants face.

Reports summarizing the complaint say the $1,591 figure is an outlier among large jurisdictions. The Justice Department’s filing, as described in coverage, claims other cities charge far less, which supports the view that San Jose’s fee is unusually heavy. That comparison feeds the core argument: when a city’s price stands apart from peers, it starts to look less like cost recovery and more like a barrier to entry for ordinary people who simply want to follow the law.

The City’s Defense: Full Cost Recovery, Not a Deterrent

San Jose’s city attorney answered with a straightforward claim: every dollar is tied to real work. She said the fee reflects more than $1,200 in staff time and nearly $350 in indirect overhead. She added the city reviews the math each year for accuracy and compliance with state law. If those figures hold, the city will argue the fee equals the reasonable cost to process, issue, and enforce licenses, which is what state law permits.

A police spokesperson previously described a time-task analysis. Staff track how long each step takes, then multiply that time by the cost of the employee doing the work. After the department processed several applications, it recalculated and raised the fee to match the measured workload. That method, if documented and consistent, could persuade a court that this is not a hidden tax but a direct bill for services actually provided.

The Legal Line After Bruen: Cost vs. Constraint

The Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen reset the map for public carry. Government cannot make ordinary citizens prove a special need. The open question is how far agencies can go with fees and training. Before Bruen, courts okayed some fees and rejected a very high one. Post-Bruen, the test turns on whether a charge is a normal administrative cost or a functional barrier to exercising a right.

NEWS: The Justice Department is suing San Jose, California, over what it calls the highest concealed-carry permit fee in the nation — nearly $1,600 per license.

DOJ says the city’s application fee is far higher than those charged in major cities including New York, Washington,…

— MDBayNews (@MDBayNews) September 17, 2026

Federal courts already draw a line for other rights. In permit cases dealing with speech, judges have said a city can charge only what it actually spends to manage the event. The measure is documented cost, not revenue or deterrence. The Justice Department’s complaint tries to place San Jose’s $1,591 on the wrong side of that line. The city counters that its time sheets and audits put it on the right side of the same principle.

What to Watch Next

Two facts will decide this: proof of cost and proof of burden. If San Jose’s records show transparent, auditable staff time and overhead that match the fee, the city’s case improves. If the Justice Department shows that the fee sits far above peers, adds uncertain extras like psychological exams, and chills normal applicants, its case tightens. Courts usually side with common sense here: recover real costs, yes; set a paywall for a right, no.