Supreme Court to Review Semiautomatic Rifle Bans from Illinois, Connecticut

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's decision to review bans on semiautomatic rifles could significantly impact Virginia, as the state has its own regulations regarding firearms, including certain types of rifles, which may be challenged if the Court alters Second Amendment interpretations.

---

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court announced it will hear challenges to bans on semiautomatic rifles, including those from Cook County, Illinois, and the state of Connecticut. The decision was part of a list of orders released after the justices' conference on Monday, June 29. This development comes less than a week after the Court struck down a Hawaii law that restricted gun owners with concealed-carry licenses from carrying firearms on private property without explicit permission from the owner. The justices declined a request last year to review a Maryland law banning certain types of rifles. However, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch had indicated they would have granted review in that case, *Snope v. Brown*. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who described a lower court ruling upholding the Maryland ban as "questionable," predicted the Court would address the issue of these rifles "soon, in the next Term or two." Now, the Court will consider *Viramontes v. Cook County* and *Grant v. Higgins*. These cases will be argued together, likely in the fall. In *Viramontes v. Cook County*, Cutberto Viramontes challenged Cook County's prohibition on semiautomatic rifles in federal court in 2021. Lower courts upheld the county's ordinance, referencing a 2023 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in *Bevis v. City of Naperville*. In that ruling, the 7th Circuit stated that plaintiffs seeking preliminary relief had not shown that the firearms in question "materially differed from machineguns and military-grade weaponry, which the Supreme Court instructed can be banned under the Second Amendment." Viramontes, in his petition to the Supreme Court, argued for clarity on applying Second Amendment precedent in cases involving firearm bans. Cook County urged the justices to deny review, citing what it characterized as the inherent danger of such rifles and the lack of evidence in the record showing their use in lawful self-defense. The Connecticut law at the center of *Grant v. Higgins* was enacted after a 2012 mass shooting. A federal court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld the ban. The 2nd Circuit reasoned that the ban imposed "targeted restrictions on unusually dangerous weapons while preserving numerous legal alternatives for self-defense and other lawful purposes." The challengers in *Grant* contend that, under prior Supreme Court decisions, a firearm cannot be banned if it is in common use for lawful purposes. Connecticut argued that the prevalence of semiautomatic rifles does not exempt them from regulation, contending that the Second Amendment does not prevent states from banning certain dangerous weapons. The Court also declined to review several requests concerning restrictions on firearm rights for individuals under the age of 21. Justice Thomas indicated he would have granted review in one such case, *West Virginia Citizens Defense League v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives*, which involved a federal law prohibiting the commercial sale of handguns to those under 21. In addition to the firearm cases, the justices granted review in two other matters: * *Grand v. City of University Heights*: An Orthodox Jewish man in Ohio seeks to revive a religious discrimination lawsuit against city officials regarding a permit for a home prayer group. * *Apple v. Epic Games*: Apple has requested clarification on the standard a court order must meet before a litigant can be found in contempt for violating it. Finally, the Court declined to intervene in a dispute concerning the head of the U.S. Copyright Office. The Court turned down a request by the Trump administration to permit the firing of Copyright Register Shira Perlmutter after a lower court ordered her temporary reinstatement. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had previously granted Perlmutter's request for a temporary reinstatement while her challenge to her firing proceeded. The Supreme Court's brief, unsigned order indicated its decision not to interfere "is not a ruling on the merits of the legal issues presented in the litigation."