By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New —SCOTUS: The U.S. Supreme Court met on Thursday, May 14, to discuss cases. All 5 Second Amendment cases that have been relisted many times are on the list. Decisions were announced on Monday, May 18—Patrick Tate Adamiak, Petitioner v. United States: Case No. 25-1190: Petition Denied. No other cases were decided. Scott v. McDougle, Case No: 25A1240: SCOTUS declines to intervene; US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: waiting until SCOTUS finishes term; New York: Second Circuit: Christian v. James: Decided: May 18; Nos. 24-2847; 25-384: The Second Circuit ruled that New York’s “default no‑carry” rule on private property open to the public is unconstitutional under Bruen, but upheld the CCIA’s ban on guns in public parks; Illinois: Seventh Circuit: Atkinson v. Blanche: Case Number: No. 22-1557; ruled in favor of Illinois law; Virginia: Two Virginia laws signed on May 14, HB 217/SB749 package, were immediately challenged in both federal and state courts.
SCOTUS
The U.S. Supreme Court met on May 14, to discuss cases. All five Second Amendment cases that had been relisted multiple times are on the list. Decisions were announced on Monday, May 18, 2026. Patrick Tate Adamiak, Petitioner v. United States: Case No. 25-1190: Petition denied. No other cases were decided. The next decisions are scheduled to be announced on Tuesday, May 26, due to the Memorial Day holiday.
Don Scott, In His Official Capacity As Speaker Of The Virginia House Of Delegates, Et Al. v. Ryan T. McDougle, Virginia State Senator And Legislative Commissioner For The Virginia Redistricting Commission, Emergency Application For Stay: Case No: 25A1240.
SCOTUS declines to intervene
- The U.S. Supreme Court, in a one-sentence order issued by Chief Justice Roberts with no noted dissent, declined to intervene in a Virginia elections dispute, effectively affirming the Virginia Supreme Court’s 4–3 decision against the Democrats’ redistricting maneuver.
- Basically, this keeps the existing 6–5 Democrat–Republican delegation map made by a bipartisan commission, helping Republicans hold onto about four U.S. House seats in the upcoming midterms.
Appellate Courts
US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Mark W. Smith, a Second Amendment attorney (@FourBoxesDiner on X.com and the Four Boxes Diner on ), who reviews current cases, explains that the Third Circuit has not yet decided several important 2A cases—Cheeseman/ANJRPC (New Jersey “assault weapons” ban) and Koons/Seigel (New Jersey “sensitive places” carry restrictions)—and he believes the delay is strategic rather than negligent. In his view, the court is holding those rulings until after SCOTUS decides the United States v. Rahimi-type prohibited-persons case (he calls it “Hammani”) and Wolford v. Lopez (Hawaii “sensitive places” case), which are expected by July 1, so that the Third Circuit can incorporate those precedents into its own opinions and avoid a remand.
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
New York: Second Circuit
Christian v. James: Decided: May 18, 2026; Nos. 24-2847; 25-384
The Second Circuit ruled that New York’s “default no‑carry” rule on private property open to the public is unconstitutional under Bruen, but upheld the CCIA’s ban on guns in public parks against a facial challenge, at least as to urban parks.
Core holdings
- Private Property Provision (CCIA § 265.01‑d)
As it applies to private property open to the public (e.g., stores, gas stations), the statute is unconstitutional because New York did not demonstrate a historical tradition of broadly banning carry on such property without opt‑in consent. The permanent injunction against enforcing §265.01‑d in that context is upheld. - Public Parks Provision (CCIA § 265.01‑e(2)(d))
The ban on carrying in “public parks” withstands a facial Second Amendment challenge because there is a strong 19th–early 20th century tradition of prohibiting firearms in urban public parks and crowded public forums, so there are at least some constitutional applications. The judgment for the State on the parks provision is affirmed. - As-applied challenge to rural parks: The panel declines to address any as-applied challenge to the statute regarding rural parks because the plaintiffs did not plead or litigate that claim in the district court.
Reasoning on private property
- The court applies Bruen/Rahimi’s two‑step framework: (1) the conduct—carrying for self‑defense on property open to the public—is protected by the Second Amendment, and (2) the State must show consistency with the nation’s historical tradition.
- New York relied on pre‑Founding and 19th-century statutes requiring owner consent to carry or hunt on others’ lands. The panel finds these laws mainly focus on hunting and poaching, aimed at protecting livestock and game, rather than regulating public carry or gun violence, so their purpose is different.
- Those laws typically covered plantations, enclosed farms, or lands “not his own,” meaning private property not open to the public; there is no evidence they were applied to commercial premises accessible to customers, so their enforcement also differs.
- Two Reconstruction-era Southern laws (Louisiana 1865, Texas 1866) are rejected because they were driven by racially biased efforts to disarm freedmen and because some post-war statutes are too weak to reflect a broad national tradition.
- The court explicitly rejects the Ninth Circuit’s analysis in Wolford v. Lopez, disagreeing that these statutes demonstrate a nationwide tradition of establishing a default no‑carry rule on all private property.
- The panel highlights the practical impact: a default ban with only “Alt-in” signage would significantly limit meaningful public carry because most businesses won’t display signs, leaving only people who “aimlessly wander streets and sidewalks” able to carry without risking felony charges.
Reasoning on public parks
- There is no dispute that carrying in parks is protected conduct, so the analysis focuses on historical tradition.
- The State presented over 60 city and town ordinances from more than 20 states (1858–early 1900s) that specifically banned firearms in public parks, along with state statutes restricting guns in crowded public gatherings and forums.
- Relying on Antonyuk II and Frey, the court states these are part of a “long, unbroken” tradition of regulating guns in often-crowded public forums and, with the rise of urban America, specifically in urban public parks.
- Because New York’s public parks ban burdens the right in a similar way and for a similar reason—prohibiting carriage to maintain order and safety in crowded public squares—it is relevantly similar under Bruen/Rahimi analogical reasoning.
- Using Rahimi’s facial‑challenge standard, plaintiffs must show that “no set of circumstances” would make the parks ban constitutional; they cannot do so because, at a minimum, applications to urban parks are part of historical tradition.
- The court rejects the plaintiffs’ attempt to invert the facial standard (arguing that any overbreadth beyond the historical scope should doom the law) as inconsistent with Rahimi and Second Circuit precedent.
Procedural posture and scope
- This decision follows earlier Second Circuit preliminary‑injunction rulings in Antonyuk that had already determined the private-property default rule was likely unconstitutional and the parks ban was likely constitutional.
- On a more complete summary‑judgment record, the panel “reaffirms” its Antonyuk I conclusions regarding private property and adopts Antonyuk II’s analysis on parks, now resolving the merits.
- The court emphasizes that its ruling on the Public Parks Provision applies only to the facial challenge; it explicitly leaves open the possibility of as‑applied challenges (such as to rural parks) that are properly raised and developed in a district court.
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Illinois: Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Atkinson v. Blanche: Case Number: No. 22-1557
District Court Decision
Judge John Robert Blakey presided over the district court case. On June 20, 2023, the district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the case with prejudice.
District Court Reasoning
The district court relied on pre-Bruen Seventh Circuit precedent and concluded that Atkinson’s claim “plainly lacked merit.” Judge Blakey noted that binding precedent required dismissal, as the Seventh Circuit had previously rejected as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(1), similar to Atkinson’s claim. The court emphasized that Atkinson’s mail fraud conviction was “a serious felony that reflects significant disrespect for the law and carries a maximum penalty of twenty years in prison and a $250,000 [fine].” The district court determined that Atkinson was “no more entitled to possess a firearm than” other convicted felons whose challenges had been denied.
Seventh Circuit Remand
On June 20, 2023, the Seventh Circuit remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration under the Supreme Court’s new framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen. The appellate panel (Chief Judge Sykes, Circuit Judges Wood, and Scudder) determined that because the parties’ briefing “only scratches the surface of the historical analysis now required by Bruen,” the district court should undertake this analysis initially. The case now proceeds on remand, with the government bearing the burden of conclusively proving that § 922(g)(1) is part of the historical tradition delimiting the Second Amendment’s scope.
Amicus brief
- On May 12, 2026, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that it, FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF), and the National Rifle Association filed an amicus brief with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atkinson v. Blanche, which challenges the federal felon-in-possession gun ban as applied to the plaintiff, who was convicted of mail fraud in 1998 and served no time in prison.
- As the brief explains, “[T]here is no historical tradition of disarming peaceable citizens.” But the government’s unconstitutional ban does just that—disarms non-violent, non-dangerous individuals. Illinois: Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Atkinson v. Blanche: Case Number: No. 22-1557
District Court Decision
Judge John Robert Blakey presided over the district court case. On June 20, 2023, the district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the case with prejudice.
District Court Reasoning
The district court relied on pre-Bruen Seventh Circuit precedent and concluded that Atkinson’s claim “plainly lacked merit.” Judge Blakey noted that binding precedent required dismissal, as the Seventh Circuit had previously rejected as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(1), similar to Atkinson’s claim. The court emphasized that Atkinson’s mail fraud conviction was “a serious felony that reflects significant disrespect for the law and carries a maximum penalty of twenty years in prison and a $250,000 [fine].” The district court determined that Atkinson was “no more entitled to possess a firearm than” other convicted felons whose challenges had been denied.
Seventh Circuit Remand
On June 20, 2023, the Seventh Circuit remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration under the Supreme Court’s new framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen. The appellate panel (Chief Judge Sykes, Circuit Judges Wood, and Scudder) determined that because the parties’ briefing “only scratches the surface of the historical analysis now required by Bruen,” the district court should undertake this analysis first. The case now proceeds on remand, with the government bearing the burden of conclusively proving that § 922(g)(1) is part of the historical tradition delimiting the Second Amendment’s scope.
Amicus brief
- On May 12, 2026, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF), and the National Rifle Association filed an amicus brief with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atkinson v. Blanche. The case challenges the federal felon-in-possession gun ban as it applies to the plaintiff, who was convicted of mail fraud in 1998 and served no prison time.
- As the brief states, “[T]here is no historical tradition of disarming peaceable citizens.” However, the government’s unconstitutional ban does exactly that—disarming non-violent, non-dangerous individuals. Illinois: Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
U.S. District Court
Virginia: Fourth District
Virginia Constitution
- Article II of the Virginia Constitution states, “In that the body of the people, trained to arms, is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Federal Court
McDonald v. Katz, No. 26-cv-1305 (E.D. Va. filed May 14, 2026), challenges Virginia’s “assault firearm” and magazine bans. Within hours of signing, the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, and Firearms Policy Coalition filed a federal lawsuit in the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria “Rocket Docket”) challenging the bans under the federal Second Amendment.
Core legal theory of the complaint
- The complaint argues that AR‑15s and similar semi-automatic rifles and 15+ round magazines are considered “common use” arms and therefore cannot be banned under Heller, Bruen, and Caetano, which permit bans only on arms that are both “dangerous and unusual.”
- It cites data showing that tens of millions of Americans own AR‑15‑style rifles, references a unanimous Supreme Court opinion in Smith & Wesson v. Mexico stating that AR‑15s, AK‑47s, and .50‑cal rifles are widely owned and legal, and highlights survey data indicating that approximately 16–24 million AR‑type rifles are in civilian hands.
Commonwealth of Virginia: These two lawsuits rely on standard Bruen-era arguments: semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than 15 rounds are in “common use” for lawful purposes and therefore cannot be banned, and historically, only “dangerous and unusual” arms may be prohibited. Case numbers have not yet been assigned.
- Crump v. Katz – Filed in Lancaster County state court against Virginia State Police Superintendent Jeffrey Katz, led by GOA, Gun Owners Foundation, VCDL, and Virginia Citizens Defense Foundation, challenging the new ban under federal and state constitutional theories.
- Black v. Hook – Filed in Fauquier County Circuit Court by NSSF and several industry plaintiffs, raising both Second Amendment and state‑constitutional claims against the rifle and magazine bans.
Commonwealth of Virginia: This lawsuit, filed only in Virginia, relies on Virginia’s Article I, § 13 because its language and state-level precedents might provide a better approach than federal law in the short term.
- Santolla v. Katz: Case No. 26‑1139, filed in a Virginia circuit court and sponsored by the NRA, Virginia Shooting Sports Association, and several local gun businesses, relies solely on Virginia’s constitution (Article I, § 13) and its explicit right‑to‑arms language.
Although more cases may be filed, the Trump Administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) is expected to file a federal case. That “missing” fifth case could be United States of America v. Virginia, brought by DOJ Civil Rights under 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (pattern‑or‑practice statute), rather than 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 or 1988. Attorney Mark W. Smith’s theory is that DOJ will not have standing until there is an actual “pattern or practice” of enforcement, which begins when the law takes effect on July 1, so a federal suit may be filed that day or shortly afterward.
