Major Second Amendment Cases in Federal and State Courts: A Comprehensive Recap as of November 2026
The legal landscape surrounding the Second Amendment has been fundamentally reshaped by the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. By discarding means-end scrutiny and interest-balancing in favor of a rigorous text, history, and tradition test, Bruen opened the door to thousands of challenges to federal, state, and local firearms regulations. As of November 1, 2026, courts at every level continue to grapple with the scope of protected “arms,” the constitutionality of categorical bans on commonly owned firearms and accessories, the limits of prohibited-person statutes, the continued viability of National Firearms Act registration schemes after legislative changes, and the boundaries of public-carry restrictions. This article provides a detailed, expansive recap of the most significant pending and recently decided matters across the federal and state judiciary, with particular attention to the Supreme Court’s upcoming calendar and prospective ruling timelines.
The Supreme Court and the Defining Hardware Question
The single most important case currently before the Supreme Court is the consolidated pair of Viramontes v. Cook County (No. 25-238) and Grant v. Higgins (No. 25-566). The Court granted certiorari on June 30, 2026, and has scheduled oral argument for the morning of December 2, 2026, allocating one hour for the combined cases. The question presented is whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.
Viramontes challenges Cook County, Illinois’s local assault-weapons ordinance, which has been in place in various forms for decades and was strengthened after the 2006 Blair Holt shooting. Grant challenges Connecticut’s statewide prohibition, enacted and expanded in the aftermath of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Both laws define the banned category by specific model names and by features such as pistol grips, telescoping or folding stocks, muzzle brakes, and flash suppressors. Similar feature-based or name-based bans exist in California, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, and several other jurisdictions.
Petitioners contend that AR-15-style rifles are among the most popular firearms in the United States, with estimates of roughly 40 million in private hands according to recent national surveys. They are used for lawful purposes including self-defense, hunting, competitive shooting, and recreational target practice. Under District of Columbia v. Heller and Bruen, arms in common use for lawful purposes cannot be categorically prohibited. The petitioners further argue that the government’s historical analogues—primarily 19th-century restrictions on certain edged weapons or early machine-gun regulations—are not relevantly similar in how or why they burdened the right, and that founding-era tradition permitted the possession of the most effective firearms available at the time.
Respondents and supporting states argue that these rifles are unusually dangerous due to their rate of fire, accuracy, and capacity for mass casualty events. They contend that “common use” is not the sole or decisive test and that the historical tradition of regulating especially lethal weapons supports modern bans. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia filed a multistate amicus brief defending the laws; other states filed in support of the challengers. The Department of Justice has submitted a brief supporting the petitioners, reflecting a shift in the federal government’s litigation posture on certain Second Amendment issues.
Several related magazine-capacity petitions have been held pending the outcome of Viramontes and Grant. These include Duncan v. Bonta (challenging California’s ten-round magazine limit, from the Ninth Circuit), Gator’s Custom Guns v. Washington (Washington’s ban on the manufacture and sale of magazines holding more than ten rounds), and NAGR v. Lamont (Connecticut’s magazine restrictions). New Jersey has also filed a certiorari petition seeking review of the Third Circuit’s July 17, 2026, en banc decision that struck down that state’s semi-automatic rifle and magazine bans; the response is due November 4, 2026. A decision in the consolidated cases is expected by the end of the October 2026 Term, likely in June 2027. The ruling will control the constitutionality of similar bans nationwide and will likely influence the magazine cases as well. Prospective timelines suggest that if the Court rules for the challengers, lower courts could begin enjoining remaining bans within weeks of the opinion’s release, while a ruling for the government would allow those laws to remain in force pending further as-applied challenges.
The Court’s next orders list is scheduled for Monday, November 2, 2026. Its next conference is set for Friday, November 6, 2026. At that conference the Justices are expected to discuss at least 17 challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) or state equivalents, one challenge to the federal prohibition on possession by persons under indictment, one to New York’s licensing regime, one to the federal prohibition on possession by noncitizens, two to state law restrictions for persons convicted of certain misdemeanors, one to the federal prohibition on conversion devices, and a process challenge involving the presumptions under Bruen’s two-step analysis. Additional petitions on domestic-violence restraining orders and fugitive-status bans are also in the pipeline. While most of these are unlikely to be granted immediately, the volume of filings underscores the ongoing pressure on the Court to clarify the application of Bruen and Hemani to status-based disqualifications.
Recent Supreme Court Merits Decisions
Two major decisions from the prior Term continue to guide lower-court analysis. In United States v. Hemani, decided June 18, 2026, the Court held unanimously that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)—the federal prohibition on firearm possession by unlawful users of controlled substances—was unconstitutional as applied to the defendant. The only evidence of drug use was Hemani’s admission that he used marijuana “about every other day.” Justice Gorsuch’s opinion emphasized that the historical “habitual drunkard” laws relied upon by the government differed dramatically from a broad status-based prohibition that does not require individualized evidence of dangerousness. The decision requires the government to show that a particular person’s drug use renders them dangerous before it may disarm them. Concurring opinions further underscored the need for case-specific showings rather than categorical disqualifications based solely on status. Prospective application of Hemani is already visible in lower courts evaluating non-violent felon cases, and further Supreme Court guidance on the dangerousness standard is widely anticipated in the current Term.
In Wolford v. Lopez, decided June 25, 2026, a 6–3 majority struck down Hawaii’s law that prohibited carrying firearms on private property open to the public unless the owner had given express consent. Justice Alito’s majority opinion held that the statute “unquestionably imposes a new and significant burden on the exercise of the right recognized in Bruen” and that the government failed to produce relevantly similar historical analogues. The decision reaffirmed that the common-law default for private property held open to the public is one of implied license to enter, not a prohibition on armed entry. Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion joined in part by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch; Justices Kagan, Jackson, and Sotomayor dissented. The ruling has already influenced challenges to expansive “sensitive places” lists and default-property rules in other states. Additional petitions addressing sensitive-places catalogs in Maryland and elsewhere remain pending and could be distributed for conference later in the Term.
On October 19, 2026, the Court denied certiorari in Beckwith v. Frey without noted dissent, leaving in place the First Circuit’s April 3, 2026, decision upholding Maine’s 72-hour waiting period for firearm transfers. The First Circuit had held that the waiting period regulates conduct occurring before a person “keeps or bears” arms and therefore does not implicate the plain text of the Second Amendment. The denial leaves unresolved a circuit split with the Tenth Circuit, which has treated waiting periods as implicating the right and requiring historical justification. Maine’s law, enacted after the 2023 Lewiston mass shooting, remains in force and requires sellers to delay delivery for 72 hours after the agreement to purchase, even when a background check has already cleared. Further petitions testing waiting periods in other states are expected as the circuit split deepens.
Circuit Court Decisions on Semi-Automatic Rifles and Magazines
The most significant lower-court victory for gun owners in 2026 came from the en banc Third Circuit. On July 17, 2026, in consolidated cases including Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General and Cheeseman v. Attorney General, the court held 10–5 that New Jersey’s ban on covered semi-automatic rifles and its restriction on magazines holding more than ten rounds violate the Second Amendment. The majority, authored by Judge Freeman and joined by Judges Hardiman, Bibas, Porter, Matey, Montgomery-Reeves, and Bove among others, concluded that both the rifles and the magazines are “arms” in common use for lawful purposes. New Jersey failed to identify a relevant historical tradition of categorical bans on such items from the Founding era; later regulations of Bowie knives or other weapons were deemed insufficiently analogous because they were either too late in time or did not impose outright bans on classes of arms in common use.
The court modified the district court’s judgment to invalidate the rifle ban as to the entire class of covered semi-automatic rifles and reversed the district court on the magazine provisions. It also remanded certain questions regarding handguns and shotguns classified as “assault firearms.” New Jersey obtained a stay of the mandate pending its petition for certiorari, so the bans remain enforceable while the Supreme Court considers the related Viramontes and Grant cases. The Third Circuit’s reasoning is expected to influence other circuits and to strengthen pending challenges to short-barreled rifle bans and similar feature-based restrictions. If the Supreme Court affirms the protective approach in Viramontes and Grant, the Third Circuit’s mandate could be lifted promptly, restoring the ability of New Jersey residents to acquire the previously banned rifles and magazines.
Other circuits remain divided. The Seventh Circuit previously upheld Illinois’s Protect Illinois Communities Act ban on so-called assault weapons and large-capacity magazines in Bevis v. City of Naperville; that decision is now effectively under the shadow of the Supreme Court’s pending review of the Cook County ordinance. The Ninth Circuit has continued to uphold California’s magazine ban in Duncan v. Bonta, treating magazines over ten rounds as outside the category of arms in common use or as subject to longstanding regulatory traditions. These conflicting approaches ensure that the Supreme Court’s resolution of the AR-15 cases will have immediate nationwide consequences. Prospective rulings are expected to produce a wave of summary reversals or remands in the held magazine cases once the hardware opinion issues.
Suppressors, the National Firearms Act, and Circuit Splits
A clear circuit split now exists on whether firearm suppressors (silencers) are “arms” protected by the Second Amendment’s plain text. On June 18, 2026, the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Comeaux held that suppressors are arms because they facilitate armed self-defense by reducing noise and the risk of hearing damage, lowering recoil, eliminating muzzle blast, increasing accuracy, and enabling faster follow-up shots. Judge Jerry E. Smith, writing for a unanimous panel that included Judges Edith Brown Clement and Stuart Kyle Duncan, rejected the government’s argument that suppressors are merely optional accessories not necessary for a firearm to function. The court affirmed the defendant’s conviction under the National Firearms Act, however, because he had not shown that the NFA’s shall-issue registration regime was being applied in an abusive manner under Bruen footnote 9 and existing Fifth Circuit precedent in United States v. Peterson.
Two weeks earlier, on June 3, 2026, the Ninth Circuit in United States v. DeBorba reached the opposite conclusion. Relying on its en banc decision in Duncan v. Bonta, the panel held that suppressors are optional accessories or “accoutrements” not necessary to the ordinary operation of a firearm and therefore fall outside the plain text of the Second Amendment. The court also treated the NFA registration scheme as a presumptively constitutional shall-issue regime. The resulting circuit split creates a strong vehicle for Supreme Court review on the threshold question of what constitutes an “arm.” The Fifth Circuit’s approach is more consistent with the functional understanding of arms that facilitate self-defense; the Ninth Circuit’s narrower view risks excluding a wide range of commonly used accessories and components. Petitions seeking review of the suppressor split are anticipated in the current Term, with a possible grant as early as the spring 2027 conferences if the Court elects to resolve the conflict after Viramontes.
Parallel litigation has produced practical relief from NFA registration requirements. In Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF (consolidated with Jensen v. ATF) in the Northern District of Texas, Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered final judgment on August 5, 2026. After Congress reduced the making and transfer taxes on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and certain any-other-weapons to zero in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the court held that the remaining NFA registration and approval provisions could no longer be sustained under the Taxing Clause or other enumerated powers as applied to those items. The permanent injunction protects the plaintiffs (including individuals, businesses such as Silencer Shop, Palmetto State Armory, SilencerCo, and B&T USA, as well as organizations such as Gun Owners of America and the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition), their members, customers (current and future), and certain state parties. The Department of Justice declined to appeal. On October 9, 2026, ATF issued an open letter announcing that, as a matter of enforcement discretion, it will no longer require prior approval or registration for the domestic manufacture, transfer, or possession of these zero-tax items nationwide. Gun Control Act background-check and Form 4473 requirements remain in effect, and state laws still apply. Additional challenges, including Brown v. ATF in the Eastern District of Missouri (status conference December 3, 2026) and Roberts v. ATF in the Eastern District of Kentucky (summary-judgment hearing December 11, 2026), continue to seek broader judicial relief that would bind the government more permanently.
State-level suppressor bans remain under challenge. Anderson v. Raoul (Illinois) was argued before the Seventh Circuit on October 28, 2026. Similar litigation is pending against New Jersey’s ban. The Fifth Circuit’s recognition that suppressors are arms strengthens these challenges, while the Ninth Circuit’s contrary view continues to support prohibition in Western states. Firearms Policy Coalition has also written to attorneys general in states that still tie the legality of these items to federal NFA compliance, urging them to stop enforcing such laws.
Prohibited-Person Statutes and the Dangerousness Standard
Challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the federal felon-in-possession ban, dominate the Supreme Court’s certiorari docket. Dozens of petitions raise facial and as-applied claims, particularly for non-violent predicates. The Court has repeatedly denied review in many such cases, but new petitions continue to arrive. Lower courts are applying Hemani’s individualized-dangerousness requirement with varying results. The en banc Third Circuit, for example, has held in certain as-applied cases (such as Williams v. Attorney General) that permanent disarmament for decades-old non-violent offenses cannot be justified under the historical tradition. Other circuits have been more deferential to categorical bans. The Supreme Court’s next conference on November 6, 2026, includes multiple § 922(g)(1) petitions, along with challenges to the ban on possession by persons under indictment, noncitizens, fugitives, and those subject to domestic-violence restraining orders. Additional petitions raise Commerce Clause challenges to various federal firearms statutes. Prospective grants on one or more of these cases could produce a decision clarifying the dangerousness standard by the end of the current Term.
The Fifth Circuit has also struck down the federal ban on direct interstate handgun purchases in Elite Precision Customs v. ATF, holding that the relevant provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 922 violate the Second Amendment. The government has a limited window to seek further review, with any petition for rehearing due by early November 2026 and a possible mandate shortly thereafter if no further review is sought.
Additional Hardware, Carry, and Related Cases
Beyond rifles and magazines, courts are addressing the outer boundaries of protected arms. In October 2026, a federal judge in the Western District of New York struck down New York’s restrictions on the purchase and sale of body armor to ordinary civilians in Heeter v. James, holding that body armor qualifies as an “arm” under the Second Amendment. The Fifth Circuit has likewise held that a federal restriction on the interstate commerce of switchblade knives violates the Second Amendment. These decisions expand the category of protected arms beyond traditional firearms and will influence challenges to bans on stun guns, less-lethal devices, and other defensive tools. Challenges to New York’s ban on the sale of Glock and Glock-style handguns, Denver’s assault-weapons and magazine bans, and similar local restrictions remain pending.
Public-carry litigation continues after Wolford. Challenges to expansive “sensitive places” lists in New York, Maryland, and other states remain pending in the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits. Age-based restrictions on handgun purchases by 18- to 20-year-olds have produced mixed results; the Department of Justice has opined that the federal ban on licensed dealers selling handguns to adults under 21 is unconstitutional, while some state courts and circuits have upheld parallel restrictions. Ghost-gun and unfinished-frame regulations have also been tested; a Delaware district court in Rigby v. Jennings held that bans on possession and self-manufacture of unserialized firearms are unconstitutional while upholding certain transfer and shipping restrictions. Washington, D.C.’s large-capacity magazine ban is under challenge in the D.C. Circuit.
State Courts and Local Ordinances
State supreme courts and intermediate appellate courts continue to apply Bruen to local ordinances. Challenges to magazine limits, assault-weapon definitions, and permitting schemes are active in California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and elsewhere. Some state courts have been more receptive to historical-tradition arguments advanced by the government; others have followed the more protective approach of the Third and Fifth Circuits. Local governments in large cities have enacted or defended feature-based bans and sensitive-place restrictions that track the state statutes now under Supreme Court review. Pennsylvania has seen challenges to restrictions on 18- to 20-year-olds carrying firearms. Colorado and Denver face combined challenges to concealed-carry licensing, reciprocity limits, and open-carry bans. These state and local cases will be heavily influenced by the outcome of the pending Supreme Court hardware cases, with many expected to be stayed or remanded once Viramontes and Grant are decided.
Conclusion and Broader Implications
The Second Amendment docket as of November 2026 reflects both the clarifying force of Bruen and the continuing resistance of some lower courts and state governments. The Supreme Court’s pending review of AR-15 platform bans will almost certainly resolve the most important hardware question of the post-Bruen era and will cascade to magazine limits, feature-based definitions, and related state laws. Circuit splits on suppressors, waiting periods, and the scope of prohibited-person statutes provide additional vehicles for review. The practical dismantling of NFA registration requirements for zero-tax items demonstrates that legislative and judicial developments can produce rapid changes in the regulatory environment even before the Supreme Court speaks.
For advocates and ordinary gun owners, the period ahead is one of both opportunity and uncertainty. Favorable circuit decisions and the ATF’s non-enforcement policy have already expanded practical access to suppressors, short-barreled firearms, and certain other items. At the same time, stays of favorable judgments and the continued enforcement of state bans mean that the full constitutional protection recognized in Heller, Bruen, Hemani, and Wolford has not yet been realized nationwide. The December 2 argument in Viramontes and Grant will mark the next major inflection point, with a decision expected by June 2027. Until the Court issues its opinion, lower courts, state legislatures, and administrative agencies will continue to test the boundaries of the right to keep and bear arms. The volume of litigation—more than 3,300 post-Bruen challenges according to some databases—ensures that these issues will remain active for years to come, with each decision further defining the scope of an individual right that the Constitution declares “shall not be infringed.” Upcoming conferences and orders lists in November 2026 will provide early signals of which additional cases the Court may accept for review later in the Term.