Supreme Court to Hear Cases on Gun Control, Jury Size, and Forfeiture

Why it matters locally: Decisions from the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of bans on semi-automatic rifles and required jury sizes could directly influence existing state laws and future legislative efforts in Indiana concerning firearm regulations and criminal trial procedures.

---

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court's upcoming term includes 11 cases related to criminal law, making up 40% of its current docket. These cases address significant legal questions, including the constitutionality of bans on semi-automatic rifles, the required size of juries in criminal trials, and the limits of property forfeiture. Legal observers note the court could take on more criminal cases, particularly those where lower federal courts have issued conflicting rulings. A recent Congressional Research Service report identified nearly 100 such disagreements on federal law in 2025, with criminal law and procedure accounting for 28 of these splits. Supreme Court Rule 10(a) and (b) cite these lower court disagreements as a reason for the court to grant review, aiming to establish national uniformity on federal legal issues. Historically, the Supreme Court has heard as many as 150 cases per term. In the 2025-26 term, the justices heard arguments in 58 cases after full briefing. Chief Justice John Roberts stated in 2012 that the court could hear 100 cases without strain, emphasizing circuit splits as a primary consideration for granting review. ### Key Criminal Cases Scheduled The court has set arguments for several high-profile criminal law cases. **_Viramontes v. Cook County_** (Dec. 2, consolidated with _Grant v. Higgins_): This case addresses whether state and local laws banning semi-automatic rifles, such as the AR-15, violate the Second Amendment. Connecticut and Cook County, Illinois, have enacted such bans. Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicated last term that the court would soon consider this issue. The solicitor general has requested to participate in oral arguments. The U.S. Courts of Appeal for the 7th and 2nd Circuits previously upheld the bans, citing procedural issues in the firearm owners' challenges. The 2008 _District of Columbia v. Heller_ decision affirmed a Second Amendment right to handgun ownership for self-defense. That ruling stated the Second Amendment protected weapons "in common use *at the time*" of its adoption. Semi-automatic rifles were not in common use in 1791, when the Second Amendment was adopted, with the AR-15 developed in 1956. The solicitor general's brief in _Viramontes_ asks whether such weapons "*are* in common use" today, a shift some observers note from the _Heller_ precedent. **_Kian v. Florida_** (Unscheduled): This case examines whether the Sixth Amendment's right to a jury trial requires a 12-person jury for all criminal prosecutions, rather than six. Justice Neil Gorsuch has previously expressed the view that the framers understood a "jury" to consist of 12 members. The court may need to overturn its 1970 precedent, _Williams v. Florida_, which upheld six-person juries. In 2020, Gorsuch's opinion in _Ramos v. Louisiana_ overturned a precedent allowing non-unanimous criminal verdicts, which some observers suggest points toward a requirement for 12-person juries. **_Jouppi v. Alaska_** (Dec. 1): This case asks whether seizing a plane for the unlawful transport of a six-pack of beer constitutes an unconstitutional "excessive fine" under the Eighth Amendment. The core question is whether the excessive fines provision should be applied generally or in reference to a defendant's specific wrongdoing. This distinction arises from the 1998 decision in _United States v. Bajakajian_, which found a $357,144 fine to be excessive. The ruling in _Jouppi_ could provide guidance for thousands of criminal forfeiture actions. ### Other Criminal Law and Related Cases **_Beaird v. United States_** (Oct. 13): This case concerns the deference federal courts owe to commentary published by the U.S. Sentencing Commission that explains federal Sentencing Guidelines. The solicitor general supports the defendant's position, leading to an appointed attorney to defend the 5th Circuit's prior rulings. **_Maxwell v. Dinis_** (Nov. 2): The court will consider whether a prisoner's claim of entitlement to release to a halfway house can be raised in a federal habeas corpus action. The solicitor general argues the 5th Circuit's ruling, which states such release is not subject to habeas relief, is inconsistent with prior Supreme Court cases. **_Younge v. Fulton County_** (Nov. 2): This civil procedure case involves the firing of a supervising prosecutor. It asks whether a civil defendant can assert an affirmative defense beyond the Rule 16 deadline to support a summary judgment motion. **_Guerrero v. Johnson_** (Nov. 4): This state death penalty case involves a claim of "intellectual disability." The threshold issue is whether a "new rule" of constitutional law can be applied retroactively in a habeas petition if it could have been raised in a prior petition when it was considered meritless. **_Nielsen v. Watanabe_** (Nov. 9): This case could lead to the court overruling _Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents_, a 1971 decision allowing private causes of action for damages against federal agents who violate constitutional rights. The case involves an Eighth Amendment claim against a federal prison paramedic. Justice Gorsuch has previously referred to _Bivens_ as a "misstep." **_Wassily v. Blanch_** (Nov. 30): This immigration case asks whether individuals whose asylum status was terminated due to serious criminal convictions are categorically ineligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status. The solicitor general argues the statute applies only to those currently in asylum status. **_Montoya Palacios v. Liggins_** (Unscheduled): The court will decide if a successful habeas corpus action challenging immigration detention qualifies for attorneys' fees and costs under the Equal Justice Act. While habeas actions are civil, the solicitor general argues they have been viewed differently from other civil actions.