WASHINGTON — If gun owners had a magic lamp and three wishes, likely all three wishes would be for the Supreme Court to hear a case addressing so-called “assault weapons” bans, and today the Supreme Court granted that wish by agreeing to hear two consolidated cases on the issue, one out of Illinois and the other out of Connecticut. This will be the first ever case heard by the court specifically addressing bans on AR-15-style rifles.
On Tuesday, June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari (review) in Viramontes v. Cook County (out of Illinois) and Grant v. Higgins (out of Connecticut). The cases are two separate challenges that the Court consolidated for briefing, argument, and decision, in essence agreeing to hear them at the same time and address their shared core constitutional question, whether the government has a right to restrict Americans from owning America’s most popular style of semi-automatic rifles, the AR-15 and similar platforms, and whether states’ prohibitions on ownership are constitutional.
Americans have been eagerly awaiting Supreme Court intervention to finally address both the numerous outstanding bans in jurisdictions around the country (for example in New Jersey, Illinois, New York), as well as a bevy of new bans that have popped up in liberal states attempting to do the same in just the past couple of years, such as Virginia, Delaware, Washington, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
(One note worth making: “assault weapons” bans and “high capacity magazine” bans almost always come as a pair. Not here. The magazine question is not part of either petition, and the Court kept the questions it agreed to answer focused squarely on the rifles, leaving the magazine bans for another day.)
The Court has turned down previous petitions to hear AR-15-related cases as recently as 2025, with Justice Kavanaugh offering the hope that, “in my view, this court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next term or two.” Until today, gun owners were largely pessimistic that the court had any urgent appetite to hear such a case, seeming to prefer “percolation” (or a complete legal exploration within the inferior courts) until deeming the topic “ripe” or fully ready for review at the highest level. (See a related article here.)
Even as the court waited for mature cases, the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice has been working over the last nine months on its affirmative litigation strategy to incentivize the court to take an AR-15 case. In a mid-May interview, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon confirmed this strategy, noting that a split circuit would be a likely requirement for the Supreme Court to take an AR-15 case, affirming, “We intend to make sure they do that.”
Ironically enough, no split circuit condition exists, and similarly to both Viramontes and Grant, appeals courts have upheld bans in all circuits where they were challenged, making the court’s intervention at this time a welcome surprise to gun owners, and perhaps even the Department of Justice itself. As of this writing, neither Ms. Dhillon nor the Department of Justice have made any public statements on the court’s decision to hear these cases.
For gun owners in New Jersey (where News2A was born), today’s decision is good news but also carries a heavy question mark: will the Third Circuit, which heard oral arguments October 15, 2025 and is expected to make a decision in the consolidated challenge to the state’s “assault weapons” ban (ANJRPC / Cheeseman v. Platkin) issue its decision, or wait further for guidance from the Supreme Court? Only time will tell.
Having granted both petitions and consolidated the cases, the Supreme Court has allotted a total of one hour for oral arguments, on a date yet to be determined, but to take place in the October Term which runs from October 2026 through June 2027. There will likely be a lengthy briefing schedule, although both cases have been thoroughly explored within their circuits.
Viramontes v. Cook County is backed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), along with individual plaintiffs who are members of both groups. Grant v. Higgins is backed by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Connecticut Citizens Defense League (CCDL), joined by individual plaintiffs.
You can view our previous coverage on the two cases of interest here: Connecticut and Illinois.
