What’s New—Judicial Activity in 2026: SCOTUS: Certiorari requests—1 Denial, 3 Postponements & I new case added; US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—Baird v. Bonta ruled in favor of the plaintiff; Rhode v. Bonta, Case No. 24-542: Trump Administration files motion to argue on behalf of the Second Amendment before the Second Circuit! As of early January 2026, the case is set to be argued sometime during the week of March 23; District Court: Constitutional Challenges to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA): Missouri: Eighth Circuit: Brown v. ATF, Case No. 4:25-cv-01162; Texas, Fifth Circuit: Jensen v. ATF, Case No, 2:25-cv-00223.
By Tanya Metaksa
SCOTUS
Announcements from the Court on Monday, Jan. 12, 2026
DENIAL: Perez v. United States: In that case, 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3) makes it unlawful for an unlicensed person to bring into, or receive in, their state of residence a firearm they obtained outside that state, with limited exceptions. SCOTUS denied certiorari, and the Second Circuit ruled against Perez, characterizing § 922(a)(3) as a regulation of the commercial conditions of firearm acquisition that “does not meaningfully constrain the right to keep and bear arms,” because it leaves residents free to purchase firearms in their home state.
POSTPONED CASES: The Court again neither grants nor denies Duncan v. Bonta (California magazine ban), Gators Custom Guns v. Washington (Washington magazine ban), and Barnett/Vermonthes v. Cook County/Illinois (Illinois rifle ban), instead rescheduling them for yet another conference, Friday, Jan. 16.
NEW CASE ADDED: NAGR v. Lamont (Connecticut): A new petition challenging both Connecticut’s “assault weapon” (AR‑15‑style rifle) ban and its ban on magazines over 10 rounds has been scheduled for its first conference on Jan. 23. The key issue is whether banning AR‑15‑style rifles and magazines over 10 rounds—items owned by millions of law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes—violates the Second Amendment, which the petitioner suggests could potentially “end” such bans nationwide if cert is granted and the law is overturned.
This continues last year’s pattern of repeated conferences: the fifth for Duncan and the fourth for both the Illinois rifle‑ban case and Gators. The “hopeful news” is that the big three magazine/rifle‑ban cases have not been denied or GVR’d, so there is still a chance the Court will grant at least one.
Courts of Appeals
California—Ninth Circuit
Baird v. Bonta; Case No: 24-565:
The video by Mark Smith, @theFourBoxesDiner, on Jan. 3, reports on a major Ninth Circuit decision filed on Jan. 2, that strikes down California’s effective ban on the open carry of handguns as unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The video explains why the speaker views it as a landmark Second Amendment victory. The video can be found here[1]
A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, in Baird v. Bonta, ruled that California’s de jure ban on open carry in counties with populations over 200,000 violates the right to “bear” arms as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The opinion, written by Judge Lawrence VanDyke, points out that at the time of the founding, there were no laws limiting open carry, and antebellum courts viewed open carry as uniquely protected. As a result, California’s current ban has no “distinctly similar” historical equivalent under the Bruen method. Judge VanDyke, whom Smith considers a potential candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court, stresses these historical points, emphasizing that California’s modern ban lacks any “distinctly similar” historical counterpart under the Bruen framework.
California’s licensing scheme and “telemarketer” critique
California argued that residents of smaller counties (under 200,000) could, in theory, obtain open-carry licenses, but the record showed that no such license had ever been issued in the state.[1]
In a concurrence, Judge Kenneth Lee, joined by Judge VanDyke, criticizes California for misleading its citizens about how to apply for open-carry licenses and compares the state’s conduct to an “unscrupulous telemarketer,” stating that the government should act better than that when regulating a fundamental right.
The video emphasizes that open carry was largely unregulated in California from statehood in 1850 until the Mulford Act of 1967, and that open carry was historically the default way of legally carrying guns in public nationwide.[1]
Judge VanDyke’s opinion acknowledges that the 1967 Mulford Act, which was the first law to criminalize the peaceful open carry of loaded handguns, was influenced by racial bias as a legislative response to Black Panther Party members openly carrying firearms to protest police conduct in Black communities, particularly their armed demonstration at the California Capitol.[1]
Predicted Supreme Court approach
Smith distinguishes between what he calls the “platonically correct” understanding—that open carry is a fundamental right—and what he expects from the current Supreme Court, which he predicts will recognize a right to carry a loaded handgun in public for self-defense but will allow states to choose whether that right is exercised via open or concealed carry. He explains that the Court generally disapproves of “outlier” gun laws and suggests that California’s nearly complete open-carry ban fits that pattern and would likely be struck down if reviewed.
National trend and Florida’s influence
The video notes that over 30 states still broadly permit open carry, often without requiring a license, citing recent actions by states like Texas and Kansas to reauthorize or expand permitless open carry.
A key point is that the Ninth Circuit opinion references a recent Florida appellate decision invalidating Florida’s open-carry ban, which the speaker highlights as an example of a “brick-by-brick” doctrinal building, where a state-court victory in Florida helps secure a federal appellate win in California, which can then influence other jurisdictions.
Strategic implications for civil rights and 2A
Smith, presents the case as a civil rights lawsuit filed by Mark Baird against the California attorney general, emphasizing that the decision upholds a fundamental civil right to carry guns openly in public.[1]
He concludes that this ruling not only benefits Californians but also supports a larger national trend against restrictive carry bans, strengthening momentum for challenges to other “outlier” gun regulations, including a pending Supreme Court case involving default bans on carrying in public places without explicit owner permission.
Rhode v. Bonta, Case No. 24-542: As of early January 2026, the case is set to be argued sometime during the week of March 23, 2026.
Interest in this case remains high, and the hearing date is quickly approaching. It’s hard to believe this case has been in litigation for seven years. Mark W. Smith, host of the youtube.com/the4boxesdiner channel, uploaded a video explaining that the Department of Justice, under President Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi, has filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit en banc case Rhode (Kim Rhode) v. Bonta. The brief criticizes California’s ammunition background check system as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Smith describes California’s ammo background check law as a “novel” and “outlier” system that requires in-person background checks for every ammunition purchase, with four different fee-based options ($5–$31), unpredictable delays ranging from minutes to days, an 18-hour validity window for the common “standard check,” and a one-time-use structure that rarely prevents prohibited persons from acquiring ammo. He points out that both the district court and a previous Ninth Circuit three-judge panel have already struck down this system as unnecessarily complicated, burdensome, convoluted, cumbersome, and unprecedented in U.S. history.
Smith explains that the DOJ’s brief clearly argues that ammunition and the ability to acquire it fall under the Second Amendment’s “plain text” because the right protects operable firearms, which necessarily require ammunition, and that, without bullets, the right to bear arms would be meaningless. Under the Bruen methodology, DOJ claims that laws directly regulating ammunition acquisition automatically meet step one because they regulate covered conduct; this shifts the burden to California to identify a well-established historical tradition of similar regulations, which DOJ argues does not exist for a law aimed at hindering lawful ammunition acquisition. The brief contends that California’s regime is specifically designed to burden law-abiding citizens’ exercise of their right to keep and bear arms, rather than to serve legitimate public safety objectives, and that such a motive has “no analog” in valid historical firearms regulations.
The video highlights DOJ’s use of “novel” and “outlier” framing to emphasize the lack of historical precedent and to portray California’s law as an outlier the Supreme Court typically disapproves of, thereby increasing the likelihood of eventual invalidation by the Court. Smith discusses the DOJ’s mention of odious post-Civil War “Black Codes,” which restricted Black Americans’ access to weapons through financial and procedural barriers, to argue that California cannot rely on such discriminatory laws as historical justification. He also stresses that gaining clear recognition that the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to acquire ammunition (and by extension, arms) is crucial for future legal battles over “ghost guns” and the right to produce firearms.
On Jan. 8, the Trump DOJ under Attorney General Pam Bondi filed a motion in this case seeking five minutes of argument time during the oral argument scheduled for late March 2026. This is the first time an administration has sought to argue in favor of the Second Amendment before an appellate court in U.S. history. It is historic! The federal government will argue that ammunition is covered by the Second Amendment in a case against a California ammunition registration law. In my lifetime of being active in the Second Amendment fight, I never would have guessed this would happen.
District Court
Constitutional Challenges to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA)
Missouri: Eighth Circuit
Brown v. ATF, Case No. 4:25-cv-01162.
Brown v. ATF, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Aug. 1, 2025, presents a major constitutional challenge to the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934[1]. The lawsuit, initiated by the Firearms Policy Coalition, National Rifle Association, American Suppressor Association, Second Amendment Foundation, and individual plaintiffs Chris Brown and Allen Mayville, along with Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutique, argues that the NFA’s registration and regulation system for suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), and “any other weapons” (AOWs) violate both the Constitution’s Taxing Clause and the Second Amendment[2]. This case comes at a critical time after Congress eliminated NFA excise taxes through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB) in 2025, fundamentally changing the constitutional basis that the NFA has relied on for nearly a century[1].
Constitutional Arguments: The Taxing Clause and Regulatory Authority
Plaintiffs present a constitutional argument asserting that the NFA now exceeds Congress’s listed powers under Article I of the Constitution[2]. Historically, in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court confirmed the NFA as solely a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing authority[3]. The tax component was crucial to the law’s constitutionality. However, with Congress removing the making and transfer taxes on most NFA-regulated firearms via the OBBB, plaintiffs argue that the regulatory system now lacks a constitutional basis[2]. The registration and recordkeeping requirements aim to regulate firearms through a taxing mechanism that no longer exists, thus exceeding Congress’s constitutional powers.
This taxing power argument presents a novel constitutional theory. It argues that once the tax provision is removed, the entire regulatory scheme becomes fundamentally flawed. The DOJ’s December 2025 opposition brief defends the NFA as a legitimate regulatory measure independent of tax considerations, asserting that Congress has authority to regulate firearms commerce and registration through the Commerce Clause[4]. However, plaintiffs’ theory points to a potential constitutional weakness: whether a statute justified solely as a tax can survive the repeal of that tax.
Second Amendment Challenge: Historical Tradition and Protected Arms
The plaintiffs claim a substantive Second Amendment violation under the framework established by New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)[1]. According to Bruen, firearm regulations must be consistent with the country’s historical tradition of gun regulation[1]. Plaintiffs argue that suppressors and short-barreled rifles are neither inherently dangerous nor unusual, and importantly, no historical tradition supports registration and regulation requirements for these protected firearms[1].
The government’s defense relies on United States v. Miller and District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), asserting that short-barreled shotguns and rifles are outside the scope of Second Amendment protections[4]. The DOJ further describes suppressors and short-barreled rifles as “particularly dangerous weapons” and “uniquely susceptible to criminal misuse”[4]. Nevertheless, plaintiffs argue that modern suppressor technology is widely used among lawful gun owners—registration data indicates a 265-percent rise in suppressor registrations from 2020 to 2024[1]—challenging claims of rarity or intrinsic danger.
The case moved to summary judgment proceedings in late 2025, with plaintiffs filing a motion for summary judgment and the DOJ submitting its opposition and cross-motion on December 17, 2025. This is the first of two major NFA challenges, followed by Jensen v. ATF, (see below) also contesting the statute’s constitutionality[2]. The legal landscape reflects a broader judicial reconsideration of firearms regulations in the wake of Bruen.
Texas, Fifth Circuit
Jensen v. ATF, Case No, 2:25-cv-00223:
The NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA‑ILA), joined by the American Suppressor Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, and additional groups such as the Texas State Rifle Association, FPC Action Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Hot Shots Custom LLC, and three individuals, has filed a second federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The new case, Jensen v. ATF, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and follows President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB), which eliminated the longstanding NFA-imposed tax on suppressors, short‑barreled rifles, short‑barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons” as defined by the NFA. While OBBB removed the $200 tax, it left the NFA’s registration and tax‑enforcement system in place, which is now the main focus of the constitutional challenge.
Second Amendment Challenge
The plaintiffs argue that since the NFA’s tax on these items has been repealed, Congress can no longer justify the remaining registration scheme under its Article I taxing power or any other listed constitutional authority. They claim that the NFA’s registration requirements for suppressors and short-barreled rifles also violate the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court’s modern test requiring consistency with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. According to the complaint, there is no comparable historical practice of imposing a registration system on these categories of arms, which the plaintiffs consider protected.
Significence
This lawsuit builds on an earlier related case, Brown v. ATF, filed on August 1 in the Eastern District of Missouri. That case also challenges the NFA after OBBB eliminated the tax. Together, Brown and Jensen seek to dismantle what the plaintiffs describe as the NFA’s unconstitutional registry by attacking its remaining registration system after its original tax reason is removed.
Brown v. ATF and Jensen v. ATF present two detailed constitutional challenges that address both structural and individual rights aspects of the NFA. Removing excise taxes raises new arguments about taxing authority, while recent Supreme Court decisions on historical traditions offer fresh grounds for Second Amendment analysis. Regardless of the final result, this litigation will significantly impact federal firearms regulation and clarify the scope of lawful firearm restrictions under current constitutional law.
