By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New – SCOTUS: Conference of April 2; George Peterson v. United States, Case No. 25-1076, is a recently filed Second Amendment–related petition for a writ of certiorari pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, with the case first scheduled for review at the Court’s April 1 conference. DECISION Chiles v. Salazar, Case No. 24‑539, though a First Amendment case, provides powerful precedent for striking down bans on AR‑15s and magazines; Goldberger v. James, Case No. 7:26‑cv‑02325, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, challenges New York’s prohibition on the concealed carry of handguns in Times Square.
SCOTUS
Conference of April 2: Thirteen cases were scheduled for discussion at the April 3 conference, including eight challenges to the federal felon-in-possession law and a challenge to the federal ban on firearms possession by anyone under felony indictment. All the cases except for the following were § 922(g)(1) cases. Although Gator’s Custom Guns, Inc v. Washington and Duncan v. Bonta had been listed for this conference, they were not considered. Next Conference scheduled for April 17.
Denials:
- James v. United States and Schoenthal v. Raoul: Case No: 25-6267 & 25-541. Whether Illinois’ flat ban on ordinary citizens carrying firearms on public transportation violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
- LeFave v. Fairfax County: Case No. 25-872: Whether the Fourth Circuit properly rejected Petitioners’ challenge to Fairfax County’s ban on carrying firearms in the hundreds of public parks operated by the County because four of those parks host preschool programs.
Recent Addition to Certiorari List:
George Peterson v. United States, Case No. 25-1076, is a recently filed Second Amendment–related petition for a writ of certiorari pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, with the case first scheduled for review at the Court’s April 17, 2026, conference.
Case and background
The case originates from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, case number 24-30043, with a decision issued on Dec. 9, 2025. George Peterson, the petitioner, lost in the Fifth Circuit and now seeks review by the Supreme Court, challenging federal action by the United States as the respondent. The Fifth Circuit’s opinion itself is not posted on the Supreme Court’s docket page. However, writing in the Judicial Report of June 25, 2025, I wrote:
“A three-judge panel reviewed this case and, on Feb. 5, 2025, held that suppressors are not “Arms” and affirmed the District Court’s denial of Peterson’s motions to dismiss and suppress. However, as of February 14, the Fifth Circuit has withheld the mandate in this case, suggesting that the decision is being held up because there appears to be disagreement with the ruling, which could lead to a review en banc or a majority ruling by the Fifth Circuit. Mark W. Smith, @fourboxesdiner on X.com, believes that this could lead to an en banc hearing regarding the panel’s ruling that suppressors are not “Arms.”
“On June 17, the Appeals Court withdrew its February 5 opinion, an extraordinary event in judicial history. Second Amendment attorney Smith noted that the panel’s withdrawal of its opinion, without any indication of en banc review, suggests the judges themselves intend to revisit and correct their reasoning. At that time, the Firearms Policy Coalition, a party supporting Peterson in this case, posted on X.com:
“The Fifth Circuit will now poll its active judges to decide whether to grant the US v. Peterson En Banc petition. If granted, the case will likely be re-briefed and re-argued before the full 5th Circuit. If not, the next available option is to petition SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari.”
That prediction did not come true, and George Peterson filed a petition for a writ of certiorari.
Proceedings in the Supreme Court
Peterson filed his petition for a writ of certiorari on March 9. The docket notes the submission of three important documents: the petition itself, a certificate of word count (demonstrating compliance with Rule 33.1 word limits), and a proof of service indicating that the United States and other required parties were served. Originally, a response from the United States was due by April 13, 2026, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 15, which typically allows 30 days to respond to a petition.
On March 30, however, the United States filed a waiver of its right to respond to the petition. This waiver indicates that the Solicitor General does not believe a response is necessary at this stage, often because the government considers the petition as not deserving of review under the usual certiorari criteria (such as the absence of a clear circuit split, interlocutory posture, lack of broad importance, or fact-bound issues). The waiver does not bind the Court; the Justices still have the discretion to call for a response if any Justice finds it helpful after reviewing the petition.
Distribution for conference and amicus activity
- On April 1, the case was scheduled for consideration at the Court’s conference on April 17. Distribution means the Justices will have the petition and related materials available to decide whether to grant plenary review, deny certiorari, or take another action (such as requesting a response, holding the petition, or granting and vacating in light of another decision). Because the case is already set for that conference despite the government’s waiver, at least one Justice’s chambers processed the petition enough to include it on the docket for that meeting.
- On April 2, a coalition of prominent gun-rights organizations submitted an amicus brief: the Second Amendment Foundation, the National Rifle Association of America, the American Suppressor Association, the California Rifle & Pistol Association, the Second Amendment Law Center, the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. This amicus filing highlights that the petition raises significant questions of interest to Second Amendment advocates and likely concerns the legality of federal firearms restrictions, possibly affecting devices like suppressors or other regulated items. The submission includes its own word-count certificate and proof of service, demonstrating compliance with the Court’s rules for amicus filings at the petition stage.
Parties and counsel
Peterson is represented by David H. Thompson of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, in Washington, D.C., who is the counsel of record for the petitioner. Cooper & Kirk frequently engages in constitutional litigation, including Second Amendment cases, which aligns with the subject matter indicated by the amicus coalition. The United States is represented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer of the Department of Justice, who appears as counsel of record for the federal respondent. Konstadinos T.. Moros serves as counsel of record for the Second Amendment Foundation and the other listed gun-rights organizations that submitted the amicus brief, demonstrating organized, coordinated support for certiorari from national and regional firearms-rights groups.
Status as of April 6, 2026
As of April 6, the only actions shown on the docket are the filing of the petition, the government’s waiver of a response, distribution for the April 17 conference, and the filing of the amicus brief. As a result, the case remains in a pre-certiorari stage, waiting for the Justices’ decision on whether to grant review, deny the petition, or take some other step. The presence of a high-profile amicus brief, experienced Second Amendment attorneys, and the Fifth Circuit’s background suggests the case could become an important vehicle for further clarification of federal firearms regulation under the Second Amendment, depending on the Court’s action after the April 17 conference.
DECISION-First Amendment & licensing, not Second Amendment, but may have 2A application
Chiles v. Salazar, Case No. 24‑539. Colorado passed a law barring licensed therapists from questioning or discouraging a minor’s gender transition, allowing only speech that affirmed the transition. The Supreme Court held in an 8-1 Decision that, as applied to the therapist, the law regulated speech, not “professional conduct,” and therefore violated the First Amendment.
Attorney Smith, commenting (@FourBoxesDiner on X.com and the Four Boxes Diner on YouTube.com), who reviews current cases, examined SCOTUS’s 8-1 decision in this case. We have summarized his review and his analysis of its application to Second Amendment issues.
Core holding in Chiles v. Salazar
- Colorado Law prohibited licensed therapists from questioning or discouraging a minor’s gender transition, permitting only affirming speech.
- The Supreme Court held that, as applied to the therapist, the law regulated speech, not “professional conduct, and therefore violated the First Amendment.
- Justice Neil Gorsuch rejected Colorado’s attempt to “recast” speech as conduct, calling it a mere “labeling game,” and stressed that speech does not become conduct “just because the state of Colorado may call it that.”
“Labeling game” and its significance
- The video emphasizes that the main point is the Court’s refusal to let states avoid constitutional review by calling what is truly speech “conduct” or “treatment” or “professional misconduct.”
- The host argues this indicates that the Court will also refuse to accept politically charged labels that attempt to alter legal analysis solely through word choice.
Application to gun and magazine bans
- The 8–1 ruling in Chiles (Childs) v. Salazar, a First Amendment case involving a Colorado ban on “conversion therapy,” supports an argument against state efforts to ban AR-15s and so-called “large-capacity” magazines by rebranding them as “assault weapons” or “large capacity magazines.”
- In many Second Amendment cases, anti‑gun jurisdictions label ordinary semi‑automatic rifles as “assault weapons” and standard magazines as “large capacity magazines,” then use those labels to justify bans.
- Smith argues that this demonstrates that the Court will similarly refuse to accept politically charged labels that attempt to influence legal analysis solely through word choice.
- He argues that, after Chiles v. Salazar, there is “0% chance” the Court will consider itself bound by such definitions because the decision states that state labels do not determine reality and cannot invalidate constitutional rights through naming.
- When AR‑15 and magazine ban cases reach the Court in the coming months, Smith predicts that a majority will look through the “political propaganda language” and treat AR‑15s as ordinary, commonly owned semi‑automatic rifles akin to the handguns protected in District of Columbia v. Heller.
Support from the Smith’s Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy article
Mark Smith quotes his Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy article, which argues that “assault weapon” is a made‑up, political propaganda term applied to commonly owned semi‑automatic rifles based on arbitrary cosmetic features.
He notes Justice Thomas has described “assault weapon” as a political term developed by anti‑gun publicists, and he connects that description to the Court’s new skepticism about relabeling in Chiles.
Overall message
The video’s main claim is that Chiles v. Salazar, though a First Amendment case, provides powerful precedent for striking down bans on AR‑15s and magazines because it shows the Court will not let states redefine things by label to avoid constitutional protections.
District Court
Goldberger v. James, Case No. 7:26‑cv‑02325, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed on March 20.
Background
The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a new federal lawsuit challenging New York’s prohibition on the concealed carry of handguns in Times Square. The case stems from sweeping gun control legislation New York enacted after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which struck down the state’s prior carry permit regime and mandated that firearm regulations be rooted in the nation’s historical tradition. In response to Bruen, New York designated numerous locations — including a large central portion of Manhattan encompassing Times Square — as “sensitive places” where carrying a firearm is a criminal offense.
Parties
The plaintiffs are private individuals who seek to lawfully carry handguns for self-defense in Times Square. The named defendant is Letitia James, New York Attorney General, sued in her official capacity as the state official responsible for enforcing the challenged law.
Key Legal Claims
The complaint challenges N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01-e(2)(t), which designates Times Square as a sensitive location. The plaintiffs argue the law violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Their main point is that New York’s reason for the ban — that Times Square is crowded and heavily policed — is exactly the reasoning Bruen rejected. The Supreme Court explained in Bruen that there is no historical basis for considering Manhattan a sensitive place “simply because it is crowded and generally protected by the New York City Police Department.” The complaint claims New York has committed “the next worst thing” by designating Times Square based on that rejected reasoning, effectively creating what FPC calls a “Constitution-free zone.” FPC President Brandon Combs said the ban “violates the rights of hundreds of thousands of people every day” and promised to “force the State to respect the Second Amendment — whether they like it or not.”
Relief Sought
The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01-e(2)(t)—both facially and as applied—violates their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights to bear arms, and they request an injunction preventing the defendants from enforcing the Times Square carry ban.
