U.S. Supreme Court Declines To Intervene In Challenge To Illinois Assault Weapons Ban

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear challenges to the Illinois law banning various semiautomatic guns and ammunition magazines, allowing the Protect Illinois Communities Act to remain in effect as the case continue to proceed through lower courts.

Justice Clarence Thomas issued a statement accompanying the court's decision emphasizing that the issues presented by those appealing the lower could considered after final judgment. Justice Samuel Alito, on the other hand, would have granted review of the case at its current state — denial of a preliminary injunction.

Representatives of the National Association for Gun Rights, which appealed to the Supreme Court earlier this year, said in a statement that the ruling shows that most of the justices see the Second Amendment right to bear arms as a "second-class" right.

“Justice Thomas just told the nation that the 7th Circuit got it wrong when it ruled that AR-15s – the most commonly owned rifle in America — is not a gun at all under the Second Amendment. And yet, the entire Court — with the exception of Justice Alito — agreed to let that decision stand," said Dudley Brown, president of the association. "Apparently, a right delayed is NOT a right denied for the Supreme Court. They better get used to hearing from us, because we will keep bringing them ‘assault weapons’ ban cases until they get it right."

The Protect Illinois Communities Act, signed into law in January 2023 in response to the Highland Park shooting, defines and bans assault weapons, including the AR-15, one of the most popular rifles in America.

In response, gun owners and firearm retailers filed a series of legal challenges in both state and federal court. The Illinois Supreme Court upheld the state's ban in August 2023, and last November the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed trial court decisions that upheld the gun ban and reversed those that blocked its enforcement.

A three-judge panel of the appellate court ruled 2-1 that the Second Amendment does not protect the individual ownership of "military-grade" weapons.

"We come to this conclusion because these assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are much more like machineguns and military-grade weaponry than they are like the many different types of firearms that are used for individual self-defense (or so the legislature was entitled to conclude)," the majority said in its 50-page decision. "Indeed, the AR-15 is almost the same gun as the M16 machinegun. The only meaningful distinction, as we already have noted, is that the AR-15 has only semiautomatic capability (unless the user takes advantage of some simple modifications that essentially make it fully automatic), while the M16 operates both ways."

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul defended the state law before the nation's highest court, urging the justices not to take up the appeals.

Raoul argued the legal challenges remained in their early stages and the 7th Circuit had yet to carry out a full analysis under the framework established by the Supreme Court's landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which struck down the state's law requiring licenses for the concealed carrying of guns.

"This court would benefit from further development of the parties’ evidence and the lower courts’ review of that evidence," Raoul stated in his brief.

The Illinois attorney general asserted the state's ban is consistent with both the Bruen decision and the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which allows for prohibitions on "dangerous and unusual" weapons.

"The plaintiffs, he said, "have not shown that the Act imposes a substantial burden on their Second Amendment rights, as the law allows the continued possession of a wide range of firearms for self-defense and other lawful purposes."

After the ruling, Raoul released a statement pledging to continue to "vigorously defend" it and declaring his office is dedicated to a comprehensive approach to combating gun violence.

“Assault weapons were designed for military use, and Illinois residents can be assured the Protect Illinois Communities Act will help prevent these weapons of war from being used to cause devastation in our schools, places of worship and recreation spaces," Raoul said. "The law is an important part of what must be a multifaceted approach to addressing gun violence, and I am pleased it remains in effect in Illinois."

Kris Brown, president of the gun violence prevention group Brady, which is representing the village of Naperville in defense of its assault weapons ban, said her organization looks forward to continuing to defend the local and statewide bans in the district court.

"We are pleased that the Supreme Court has recognized, as argued by Brady, that this case at this stage of litigation is not cert-worthy," Brown said. "This is particularly welcome news amid the two-year anniversary of the Highland Park July 4th mass shooting, in which a gunman armed with an assault weapon killed seven people and injured dozens more, showing the extreme lethality of these weapons of war."

Tuesday's decision marks the third time the Supreme Court has passed up an opportunity to intervene in cases challenging the Protect Illinois Communities Act, with the justices first declining to block the ban last May and again in December on the eve of a key Jan. 1 gun registration deadline this year.

In his three-page statement accompanying the court's decision not to take the case this term, Thomas criticized the 7th Circuit's decision. The senior conservative justice argued that the appellate panel had misinterpreted precedent and it was hard to see how they could have concluded that the AR-15s and their analogs are not "arms" protected by the Second Amendment.

"According to the Seventh Circuit, the rifle selected by millions of Americans for self-defense and other lawful purposes does not even fall within the scope of the Arms referred to by the Second Amendment," Thomas said. "This Court is rightly wary of taking cases in an interlocutory posture. But, I hope we will consider the important issues presented by these petitions after the cases reach final judgment."

The lower court's decision, according to Thomas, shows why he and his fellow justices need to provide more guidance about what counts as "arms."

"By contorting what little guidance our precedents provide, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the Second Amendment does not protect 'militaristic' weapons," Thomas said. "It then tautologically defined 'militaristic' weapons as those 'that may be reserved for military use.' The Seventh Circuit's contrived 'non-militaristic’ limitation on the Arms protected by the Second Amendment seems unmoored from both text and history. And, even on its own terms, the Seventh Circuit's application of its definition is nonsensical."