This morning, June 2nd, the Supreme Court released its weekly order list, and in a move that comes as a surprise to many, the Court denied the grant of certiorari in both Snope v. Brown and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island. Both cases had seen weekly relists since they were first added to the conference list in January and were conferenced 15 times since. Does this mean that the Supreme Court is not interested in questions relating to “assault weapon” bans or restrictions on standard capacity magazines? Some will surely say that the sky is falling. But there is some important context to this that is worth considering, which we will explore below. 
Nonetheless, the strategy on the appeal to the highest court was likely more to cling to the hope that it would be held alongside the grant of certiorari in a case like Snope and then GVR’d back down for reconsideration in light of whatever the Court ruled in that other case. In other words, Ocean State was probably just along for the ride, and with the denial in Snope, that ride has now come to an end.It is noteworthy that three justices dissented in denying cert in that case. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would have granted the petition, though no dissenting opinion in the denial of cert was filed. Justice Alito has, in the past, been skeptical of the blanket denial of cases in an interlocutory posture, and while it is idle speculation, it is possible that there is some reconsideration of that policy happening behind the scenes. Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion cuts more to the issue as to why this question is not quite ripe. From Kavanaugh’s dissent: But what is noteworthy is the potential for the consolidated ANJRPC and Cheeseman cases to play a critical role in forcing the Supreme Court’s hand. Kavanaugh pointed to cases coming out of California (the 9th Circuit), Illinois (the 7th Circuit), and Connecticut (the Second Circuit), all of which are rejecting the clear application of both Heller and Caetano to the question of bans on arms in common use.The Third Circuit is set to hear oral arguments on ANJRPC and Cheeseman on June 30th. In those cases, the lower court ruled that the Colt AR-15 is protected under the Second Amendment (a clear break in interpretation from Maryland in Snope). The composition of the Third Circuit is much more favorable, and the binding precedent at the Third Circuit is much more favorable to gun rights than elsewhere in the nation. The Third Circuit’s ruling in these cases is therefore most likely to be different than that coming out of Illinois, California, and Maryland.New Jersey’s cases are now, potentially, the most important cases in the nation in overturning “assault weapon” and magazine bans. As such, a final ruling in ANJRPC and Cheeseman may well be the case that SCOTUS must finally review. And that aligns with Kavanaugh’s predicted timeline of putting this issue to bed in the next one to two terms.
Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island
This case, dealing primarily with Rhode Island’s ban on standard capacity magazines, was before the Supreme Court in an interlocutory posture, meaning an appeal from a denial of a preliminary injunction at the lower, district court level. In recent terms, in particular, the Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that they have little interest in hearing cases that are not fully resolved in the lower courts. The odds, therefore, were not strong in this case as a starting point. This case was unique in a certain sense, in that the way in which the denial of the preliminary injunction in the lower court was handled brought it very close to finality. Essentially, if the denial of the preliminary injunction were to stand in that case, the full dismissal of the case would be inevitable. Snope v. Brown
The much larger disappointment is the denial of cert in the Snope case, a challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons”. For context, Snope is a matter that has been bouncing around the federal court system for some time. First filed in December of 2020 as Bianchi v. Brown, the case had worked its way up through the 4th Circuit alongside NYSRPA v. Bruen. It was then held and then GVR’d with the Bruen decision. After five years of working its way all the way to the Supreme Court twice, the case record in Snope cannot be more complete.In the denial of the grant of certiorari in Snope, both Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh filed dissenting opinions, with Kavanaugh’s dissent joined by Alito and Gorsuch, meaning 4 of the 5 justices needed for review of this case dissented. Neither of them appeared to be particularly illustrative on the legal question before the Court, and both Kavanaugh and Thomas seemed to clearly express skepticism of the 4th Circuit’s interpretation that commonly owned semi-automatic rifles are not protected under the Second Amendment. Justice Thomas, who registered previous dissents on these types of cases, added one element of special urgency:The Constitutional status of AR-15s is all the more urgent after this Court’s decision in Bondi v. VanDerStok, 604 U. S. ___ (2025). Recently amended regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) provide that a “firearm” under the Gun Control Act includes objects that “may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to” a working firearm. 27 CFR 478.11 (2023). In VanDerStok, this Court refused to hold that definition unlawful, reasoning that an “artifact noun”–that is, a “word for a thing created by humans”– may “refer to unfinished objects,” and thus that weapon parts kits are as regulable as the firearms they might eventually become. 604 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 10). But, “‘every single AR-15 can be converted to a machinegun using cheap, flimsy pieces of metal–including coat hangers…”. Thus, on the Court’s logic, it seems that ATF could at any time declare AR-15s to be machineguns prohibited by federal law. (internal citations omitted)
In short, under this Court’s precedents, the Fourth Circuit’s decision is questionable. Although the Court today denies certiorari, a denial of certiorari does not mean that the Court agrees with a lower-court decision or that the issue is not worthy of review. The AR-15 issue was recently decided by the First Circuit and is currently being considered by several other Courts of Appeals. See Capen v. Campbell, 134 F. 4th 660 (CA1 2025); see also, e.g., National Assn. for Gun Rights v. Lamont, 685 F. Supp. 3d 63 (Conn. 2023), appeal pending, No. 23-1162 (CA2); Association of N. J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Platkin, 742 F. Supp. 3d 421 (NJ 2024), appeal pending, No. 24-2415 (CA3); Viramontes v. County of Cook, No. 1:21-cv-4595 (ND Ill., Mar. 1, 2024), appeal pending, No. 24-1437 (CA7); Miller v. Bonta, 699 F. Supp. 3d 956 (SD Cal. 2023), appeal pending, No. 23-2979 (CA9). Opinions from other Courts of Appeals should assist this Court’s ultimate decisionmaking on the AR-15 issue. Additional petitions for certiorari will likely be before this Court shortly and, in my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next Term or two. (emphasis added)
ANJRPC and Cheeseman Cases Are Now Critical
It was clear in February that the Supreme Court was not going to hear this question in the current term. After numerous relists, the best-case scenario was a grant of cert in the 2025 term, which would start this fall and conclude in June of 2026. Justice Kavanaugh points to a laundry list of cases moving through Circuit Courts around the nation. What would make this issue fully ripe for the Supreme Court would be a clear and obvious split in Circuit Court interpretations. In short, all of these cases percolating through lower courts across the US need to produce some patterns.It will be heavily debated over the next several months as to whether a split is truly necessary to review a lower court decision as bizarre and out-of-line with the binding precedent of prior Supreme Court case law on the Second Amendment. (If the Fourth Circuit is so clearly getting the law wrong on this question, why wait for more lower courts to make the same mistake?) 
