HAPPY NEW YEAR!
By Tanya Metaksa
A Short History of Second Amendment cases considered by the U.S. Supreme Court from 1939 to 2008
In what I call the Pre-Heller Period, the NRA and other groups, such as the Second Amendment Foundation, which began its advocacy on behalf of the Second Amendment after the enactment of the 1968 Gun Control Act, were reluctant to bring Second Amendment cases.
That reluctance stemmed directly from the fact that US v. Miller was the only Second Amendment case since 1776. Judicial activity began to change after the enactment of the 1994 “Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act”, popularly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB or FAWB), was enacted as subtitle A of title XI of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
Pre-Heller Period (1950-2008)
The Supreme Court largely stayed silent on the Second Amendment for almost 70 years after United States v. Miller (1939), which was the only direct case related to the Second Amendment decided before Heller. In Miller, the Court upheld the National Firearms Act’s registration requirement for short-barreled shotguns, emphasizing the militia-related purpose of the Second Amendment. Between Miller and 2008, the Court only referenced the case in seven other opinions but did not address any major Second Amendment challenges during this long period.
Heller to Bruen Period (2008-2022)
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), authored by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, marked a pivotal moment as the Court ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in the home, independent of militia service. The Court struck down Washington D.C.’s handgun ban and the requirement that firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled.
Two years later, McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) incorporated the Second Amendment to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, making the individual right recognized in Heller applicable against state and local governments. This decision clarified the scope of gun rights at the state level.
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court expanded Second Amendment protections beyond the home and established a new analytical framework. The Court rejected the two-step test that lower courts had developed, which combined historical analysis with means-end scrutiny. Bruen held that when the Second Amendment’s text covers conduct, the government must demonstrate that regulations align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Post-Bruen Period (2022-Present
The Bruen decision sparked an unprecedented rise in lawsuits, with nearly 3,000 challenges to gun restrictions filed in lower courts. Several cases have been brought before, or are pending before, the Supreme Court.
United States v. Rahimi (2024) marked the Court’s first major Second Amendment ruling after Bruen. In an 8-1 decision, the Court upheld a federal law that bans individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms. Chief Justice Roberts stated that when someone presents a credible threat to another person’s physical safety, they can be temporarily disarmed in accordance with the Second Amendment.
Garland v. Cargill (2024) considered whether bump stocks are considered “machine guns” under the National Firearms Act. In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that the ATF went beyond its legal authority by labeling bump stocks as machine guns, effectively overturning the federal ban.
Multiple Second Amendment cases are still pending before the Court this term, as justices review additional petitions related to various firearm restrictions. The Court has already accepted two gun rights cases this term, highlighting ongoing debates over how to interpret Bruen’s text-history-and-tradition test.
Present Date
The Court has already granted review in several Second Amendment-related cases for the 2025–26 Term, and it is also considering a significant number of gun cases at the certiorari stage. What follows are the key granted cases and the most important cert-stage matters as of late December 2025.
Granted Second Amendment cases (on the merits)
Wolford v. Lopez (No. 24‑1046) – Hawaii’s “sensitive places” and permitting regime. The case is scheduled for the 2025–26 docket; arguments are expected during the October 2025 Term, with a decision by June 2026. Wolford challenges Hawaii’s post‑Bruen public carry framework, including broad “sensitive place” restrictions and related licensing rules.
United States v. Hemani (No. 24-1234) – firearms and unlawful drug use — The Court granted certiorari in United States v. Hemani on Oct. 20, to review the constitutionality of the federal ban on firearm possession by “unlawful users” of controlled substances. Hemani is scheduled for argument in early 2026 as part of the 2025–26 Term, with a decision expected by late June or early July 2026.
Notable petitions pending at the certiorari stage
There are many Second Amendment petitions currently pending or being repeatedly relisted; the most prominent groups involve felon-in-possession bans, other federal status-based restrictions, and state public-carry or age-limit laws.
- Felon‑in‑possession challenges (18
- SCOTUSblog’s Dec.25 “Relist Watch” notes that approximately 75 petitions challenging the federal felon-in-possession statute under the Second Amendment have been relisted, including Granger v. United States and Ketzner v. United States.
- These petitions question whether convicted felons still have Second Amendment rights and whether § 922(g)(1) is facially valid or unconstitutional as it applies to some non-dangerous offenders.
- Other major Second Amendment petitions highlighted for the Long Conference
- A September 2025 preview from the Duke Center for Firearms Law highlights around fifty firearms-related petitions scheduled for or around the Court’s 2025 “Long Conference,” including challenges to:
- Age‑based public‑carry restrictions for 18‑ to 20‑year‑olds, such as petitions following a Third Circuit decision striking down Pennsylvania’s emergency‑period carry limits for that age group.
- Federal restrictions like § 922(n) (firearm receipt while under felony indictment) and other status-based disarmament provisions.
- A September 2025 preview from the Duke Center for Firearms Law highlights around fifty firearms-related petitions scheduled for or around the Court’s 2025 “Long Conference,” including challenges to:
