A long-running constitutional fight over one of America’s most popular and politically controversial classes of firearms is heading toward a Supreme Court decision with potentially sweeping consequences.
The outcome could determine how far state and local governments may go in banning commonly owned semiautomatic rifles and provide lower courts with new instructions for deciding Second Amendment challenges.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments December 2 in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, consolidated cases challenging restrictions covering AR-15-style rifles in Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut.
The justices have agreed to consider whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee Americans the right to possess AR-15-platform rifles and similar semiautomatic firearms.
Cook County’s ordinance prohibits numerous firearms it classifies as assault weapons, while Connecticut’s restrictions were adopted following the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and expanded in 2023.
Lower federal courts upheld both measures, rejecting arguments that the bans violate the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Gun-rights advocates contend that AR-15-style rifles are widely possessed for lawful purposes and therefore qualify as protected weapons under the Supreme Court’s existing interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Cook County and Connecticut argue that the weapons possess military-style characteristics, have repeatedly been used in mass shootings and may be restricted without eliminating access to other firearms commonly used for personal protection.
The case will require the justices to apply the framework established in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires firearm restrictions to be consistent with America’s historical tradition of gun regulation.
Robert Cottrol, a George Washington University law professor, argued during the school’s Supreme Court Preview that American history does not establish a clear tradition of prohibiting firearms because they possess military features.
Cottrol pointed to the Militia Act of 1792, which required many able-bodied white men between 18 and 45 to enroll in their local militia and acquire weapons and equipment suitable for military service.
“One of the best indications of what the framers thought of military weapons was not even that they abandoned them, they required them,” Cottrol said.
Cottrol predicted that the justices would invalidate the challenged bans, although he said the reasoning used by the court could prove more important to future litigation than the immediate result.
One difficult question will be how the court distinguishes semiautomatic rifles, which fire one round with each trigger pull, from fully automatic weapons regulated under federal law.
“How do they draw a line and stay consistent with history and tradition but also preserve the idea that automatic weapons are different and are not within the ends of protection,” Cottrol said.
The consolidated cases do not directly address magazine-capacity restrictions, meaning separate litigation would likely be required to determine whether governments may limit the number of rounds a firearm can hold.
Although a ruling would directly resolve the Cook County and Connecticut disputes, its reasoning could affect similar restrictions in California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland and other jurisdictions.
Legal analysts at the George Washington University event also examined Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota, an Arizona election case scheduled for argument December 8 involving documentary proof of citizenship and federal restrictions on removing voters shortly before elections.
Another significant case, Kian v. Florida, will decide whether the Constitution requires 12-person juries in state criminal trials, potentially affecting Florida and five other states that permit six-member juries in some cases.
Professor Renee Lerner warned that a decision requiring 12 jurors could create difficult questions involving older convictions still under direct review, including whether defendants would be entitled to new trials years after witnesses and evidence became unavailable, The Center Square reported.
The gun-rights dispute remains one of the term’s most closely watched cases because the court’s answer could either preserve existing semiautomatic-rifle bans or establish a constitutional rule placing many of them in jeopardy.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
