In February 2025, shortly after taking office, President Trump signed an executive order directing the Department of Justice to protect Second Amendment rights. Since this significant event, we have been monitoring and tracking the DOJ’s actions related to the Second Amendment and associated legal cases. An emerging pattern of events suggests a growing divide within the Justice Department regarding its position on Second Amendment issues.
Bondi’s February appointment by President Trump was subject to a significant amount of criticism from the Second Amendment community. Opponents pointed to her history of supporting anti-civil liberty and anti-gun measures. After the Parkland school shooting in Florida, for example, Bondi, then state attorney general, supported “red flag” laws, raising the age to purchase a firearm to 21, and banning bump stocks. Absent a directive from a higher power, Ms. Bondi’s historical position is frequently not aligned with protecting the Second Amendment.
The Justice Department, at large, has enacted a handful of measures that are pro-Second Amendment; however, its record has been spotty at best since Bondi’s appointment. More recently, the DOJ has taken actions viewed as expressly hostile toward the Second Amendment, raising eyebrows from many who expected a different posture, especially after President Trump’s directive.
For example, on September 22, District Judge Corey L. Maze denied a request by 15 anti-gun states to intervene in a significant Second Amendment case, saying “their interest has been adequately protected by Defendants.” The defendants in this case are the Department of Justice, and the issue at hand is the contentious 2024 Biden-era ATF rule surrounding the definition of what it means to be “engaged in the business” of selling firearms. Judge Maze’s statement implies that the DOJ has not at all changed its posture in defending this unconstitutional rule.
In July, the Bondi DOJ tried to moot a case that challenged numerous abuses of FFLs by the ATF, suggesting that, because the ATF had rescinded the discriminatory rule, the case was no longer relevant, despite the fact that defendants have no reasonable expectation that future violations will not recur.
In June, the Bondi DOJ attacked Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act – again. The 2021 measure was designed to ensure that the state’s officers and resources would not be used to enforce federal gun control measures that were extra-constitutional. Under the Biden administration, the DOJ filed suit against the state of Missouri over the measure. The case has been litigated for years, and recently the state sought a petition for a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court. In response, the Bondi DOJ stated that “The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied,” adding, “The concerns raised here by the United States, however, do not warrant this Court’s review in this case.” It’s difficult to imagine a more hostile move from the Justice Department than telling the Supreme Court not to hear a Second Amendment case, especially when the legislation at hand is designed to protect a state from federal overreach. This filing was submitted by Hashim M. Mooppan, the Acting Solicitor General, who reports directly to Bondi.
In early September, shortly after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Pam Bondi, in her official capacity as Attorney General, made alarming statements regarding free speech on her X feed. These statements brought criticism from the Second Amendment community, which was already disappointed with her performance, and served only to heighten concern about her ability to execute the office, with many calling for her to step down or to be fired by President Trump.
Enter the New White Knight and Second Amendment Champion
While the Bondi DOJ has, for the most part, continued to wage guerrilla warfare against the Second Amendment, a new white knight and unexpected Second Amendment champion has emerged: Harmeet K. Dhillon.
Harmeet Dhillon, another Trump nominee, is the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, confirmed by the Senate on April 3, 2025, by a vote of 52-45. Unlike Ms. Bondi, Ms. Dhillon’s confirmation was widely celebrated by conservatives and gun rights activists, and heavily resisted by the left. She has a history of representing pro-life causes and clients and has actively argued in favor of the Second Amendment.
In an April video interview, Ms. Dhillon promised strong action against states that were trampling the Second Amendment, and it didn’t take long for her to deliver.
One of her most visible contributions in the Second Amendment arena occurred in May when the DOJ filed a brief as amicus curiae, in support of petitioners in the case of Wolford v. Lopez, which is being appealed to the Supreme Court from the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court. Ms. Dhillon’s name appeared on that brief which stated, “The United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms and in the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment.” That statement proved to be a cornerstone that Ms. Dhillon would go on to employ in other cases.
On September 18, the Justice Department weighed in on a significant New Jersey “assault weapon” ban/mag ban case, filing yet another amicus brief, this time prominently signed by Ms. Dhillon, in a case known as ANJRPC v. Platkin. Referencing President Trump’s directive in the executive order on the Second Amendment, the brief stated:
The United States has strong interests in ensuring that these important questions are correctly resolved; that the Second Amendment is not treated as a second-class right; and that law-abiding Americans in this circuit are not deprived of the full opportunity to enjoy the exercise of their Second Amendment rights.
On September 22, Ms. Dhillon again represented the Justice Department when she spoke during oral arguments before the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the Illinois “assault weapon” ban case known as Harrel et al. v. Raoul, stating, “The United States has a strong interest in ensuring that the Second Amendment is not relegated to a second-class right, and that all the law-abiding citizens in this circuit remain able to enjoy the full exercise of their Second Amendment rights, binding Supreme Court precedent requires.”
Although the face that is most visibly representing the Justice Department is often not directly involved in measures related to Second Amendment actions, Ms. Bondi and the DOJ under her leadership continue to evidence hostility toward Second Amendment measures on many fronts. The lone exception to this rule is actions by Ms. Dhillon, who has, to date, unequivocally furthered the directive from President Trump to protect the Second Amendment. These diverging paths beg the question: Is there a rift in the Justice Department when it comes to taking action on the Second Amendment?
