By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: Gators Custom Guns v. State of Washington: Case No:25-153 The petition to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed on Aug. 6, 2025. This case challenges Washington’s magazine ban. The Supreme Court has ordered the State of Washington to respond to the petition, after previously requesting permission not to file a response; Illinois: Seventh Circuit—Barnett v. Raoul, Case No: 23-1825, is a significant Second Amendment case challenging Illinois’ Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA), which bans the sale and possession of certain semi-automatic firearms, labeled as “assault weapons,” including AR-15s, AK-47s, and magazines holding more than 10 rounds for rifles or 15 for handguns.
SCOTUS
Gators Custom Guns v. State of Washington: Case No:25-153 The petition to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed on Aug. 6. This case challenges Washington’s magazine ban. The Supreme Court has ordered the State of Washington to respond to the petition, after previously requesting permission not to file a response. This is seen as a positive sign for the petitioners, indicating that the Supreme Court is showing interest in the case, rather than immediately rejecting it.
Supreme Court Actions:
- Washington’s Attorney General submitted a waiver requesting not to respond to the petition for writ of certiorari unless directed otherwise by the Court.
- On September 4th, the Supreme Court sent notice mandating that the State of Washington file a response by Oct. 6.
- The case, initially scheduled for conference on Sept. 29, is likely to be postponed to a later conference date because of the requested response.
- Generally, if the Supreme Court proceeds to conference without a response from the respondent, the petition is likely to be denied quickly. The request for a response indicates possible interest or concern on the part of the Court.
Case Background and Implications
- The original challenge to Washington’s magazine ban succeeded briefly in the local Katz County Superior Court, but the Washington Supreme Court Case No: 102940-3, quickly intervened and overturned the decision by a 7-2 margin.
- This week, a coalition of attorneys general representing 27 states filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, urging the justices to grant certiorari. Editor Dave Workman wrote the story here.
Courts of Appeal
Illinois: Seventh Circuit
Barnett v. Raoul, Case No: 23-1825, is a significant Second Amendment case challenging Illinois’ Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA), which bans the sale and possession of certain semi-automatic firearms, labeled as “assault weapons,” including AR-15s, AK-47s, and magazines holding more than 10 rounds for rifles or 15 for handguns. The case, set for oral arguments on Sept. 22, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, tests the constitutionality of these restrictions under the framework established by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
The plaintiffs, including Caleb Barnett and others, argue that PICA violates the Second Amendment by prohibiting firearms and magazines in “common use” for lawful purposes, such as self-defense, hunting, and sport shooting. They rely on District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which affirmed the right to possess commonly used firearms, and Bruen, which requires firearm regulations to align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The plaintiffs assert that AR-15s and high-capacity magazines are widely owned by law-abiding citizens, with millions in circulation, making them protected “arms” under the Second Amendment. They argue Illinois cannot demonstrate a historical precedent for banning such widely used firearms.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), under President Donald Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi, has intervened by filing: an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs, a rare move. The DOJ argues that the Seventh Circuit’s prior ruling in Bevis v. City of Naperville (2023), which upheld a similar ban, misapplied Heller and Bruen. The DOJ contends that semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 are in common use and thus protected, and that magazines are integral to firearm functionality, also falling under Second Amendment protections. The DOJ’s brief emphasizes that Illinois’ ban lacks historical grounding and that the burden lies on the state to justify restrictions, not on citizens to prove their rights. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon is set to argue for five minutes during the oral arguments, reinforcing the federal government’s stance that PICA is unconstitutional.
Illinois defends PICA, claiming the banned firearms are “dangerous and unusual” weapons more suited for military use than civilian self-defense, thus falling outside Second Amendment protections. The state argues that PICA is a valid public safety measure, citing features like pistol grips and folding stocks as justifying the ban. However, the plaintiffs and DOJ counter that these features do not render the firearms unprotected, as they are commonly used for lawful purposes.
The case’s outcome is uncertain due to the Seventh Circuit’s panel, which includes judges perceived as skeptical of expansive Second Amendment rights. If the plaintiffs lose, the case is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, where Justices Thomas and Alito have already signaled interest, noting that AR-15s are among the most popular rifles in America and likely protected. The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in July 2024 was procedural, leaving open the possibility of future review after a final judgment. Barnett v. Raoul could significantly influence Second Amendment jurisprudence nationwide.
District Court Case Number: 3:23-cv-00209 (Southern District of Illinois): The case is consolidated with related cases (Harrel v. Raoul, Langley v. Kelly, and Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois v. Pritzker) in the Seventh Circuit and was previously consolidated with Bevis v. City of Naperville and Herrera v. Raoul. Additionally, a related appeal was filed on Nov. 12, 2024, under Seventh Circuit Case Number 24-3060.
