Supreme Court of the United States
Second Amendment Case Tracker
Plain-language updates on gun rights cases before the Supreme Court
Last updated: June 30, 2026Cases tracked: 14Court term: 2025–2026
Case Alerts
Get notified when a case moves
Occasional email updates when the Supreme Court acts on a case tracked here — a cert grant, a denial, or a decision. No fixed schedule, no spam.
You'll get one email to confirm your subscription (double opt-in). Unsubscribe anytime.
A quick heads-up: confirmation and update emails sometimes land in spam or Promotions. If you don't see it, check there and mark it "Not spam" so future alerts reach your inbox.
A quick heads-up: confirmation and update emails sometimes land in spam or Promotions. If you don't see it, check there and mark it "Not spam" so future alerts reach your inbox.
Decided2
The Court has heard argument and issued its written opinion in these cases. The ruling is final.
What to watch: The term's two argued Second Amendment cases are decided (below). At its June 29 clean-up conference (orders released June 30, 2026), the Court granted two new rifle cases — Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins — now consolidated and awaiting argument in the fall; see Being Decided This Term. It held over the large-capacity-magazine cases (Duncan, Gator's) and NAGR v. Lamont, which carry to the long conference in late September 2026, and it denied the age-restriction petitions (see Court Declined to Hear).
Wolford v. Lopez
No. 24-1046
Can states ban carrying a gun in restaurants, bars, and businesses unless the owner explicitly posts a sign or says guns are welcome?
What the Court ruled
By a 6–3 vote, the Court struck down Hawaii's "vampire rule" — the law requiring licensed concealed-carry holders to get a property owner's express permission before bringing a firearm onto private property open to the public. Justice Alito wrote the opinion, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. The Court rejected Hawaii's argument that the rule was just a property-law default rather than a Second Amendment question, and found the historical laws Hawaii relied on — including an 1865 Louisiana statute rooted in the post–Civil War Black Codes — too tainted and too rare to justify it.
What it means
The default flips back: a licensed carrier may bring a firearm onto private property open to the public — stores, restaurants, gas stations — unless the owner affirmatively says no. That is already the rule in 45 states. The decision is limited to this private-property consent rule and does not touch Hawaii's full list of "sensitive places." It puts similar affirmative-consent laws in California, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland directly in the path of follow-on litigation.
Timeline (from official SCOTUS docket)
- Jun 25, 2026Decided — Hawaii's law struck down; reversed and remanded, 6–3. Opinion by Alito; Barrett concurred (Thomas, Gorsuch joining Part II–B); Kagan and Jackson dissented (Sotomayor joining Jackson).
- Jan 20, 2026Oral argument heard before the Court
- Nov 12, 2025Argument scheduled for January 20, 2026
- Oct 3, 2025Cert granted, limited to Question 1
- Sep 6, 20249th Circuit upheld Hawaii's law
United States v. Hemani
No. 24-1234
Can the federal government make it a felony to own a gun simply because a person uses marijuana?
What the Court ruled
By a 9–0 vote, the Court ruled that prosecuting Ali Hemani under the federal "unlawful user" gun ban — 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) — violated the Second Amendment as applied to him. Justice Gorsuch wrote the opinion. The government never tried to show Hemani was actually dangerous; it argued that anyone who regularly uses marijuana can be disarmed automatically, and the Court rejected that as too broad.
What it means
This is a narrow ruling, not a blanket legalization. The Court did not strike down the law entirely, and it expressly left open whether the government can still disarm a drug user it proves is genuinely dangerous. In practice: automatic, status-based prosecution of marijuana users for gun possession is off the table, but case-by-case prosecutions backed by real evidence of danger may still be possible.
Timeline (from official SCOTUS docket)
- Jun 18, 2026Decided — affirmed 9–0. Opinion by Gorsuch; Thomas, Jackson, and Alito wrote separately.
- Mar 2, 2026Oral argument held
- Oct 20, 2025Supreme Court agreed to hear the case
- Jun 2025Federal government petitioned the Court
- Jan 31, 2025Fifth Circuit ruled for Hemani
Being Decided This Term2
Cases the Court has agreed to hear, with argument or a written opinion still pending.
Two new cases just added. On June 30, 2026, the Court granted Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins and consolidated them for one hour of argument on a single question: whether the Second Amendment protects AR-15-platform and similar semi-automatic rifles in common use. Argument is expected in the fall, early in the October Term 2026; no date is set yet. These are the first rifle-ban cases the Court has agreed to hear since it denied Snope v. Brown in 2025.
Viramontes v. Cook County
No. 25-238
Cook County's ban on AR-style rifles and similar semi-automatic firearms
What the Court agreed to decide
On June 30, 2026, the Court granted cert and consolidated this case with Grant v. Higgins (No. 25-566). Review is limited to the question presented here: whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess AR-15-platform and similar semi-automatic rifles in common use. One hour total is allotted for argument across both cases.
What's next
Argument is expected in the fall, early in the October Term 2026; a date has not been set. This is the first time since Heller that the Court will squarely address whether commonly owned semi-automatic rifles are protected "arms." A ruling could decide the fate of "assault weapon" bans in Illinois, Connecticut, California, New York, Maryland, and other states.
Timeline (from official SCOTUS docket)
- Jun 30, 2026Cert granted; consolidated with Grant v. Higgins (one hour total argument)
- Jun 25, 2026Distributed for conference — no action
- Jun 18, 2026Distributed for conference — no action
- Dec 12, 2025First distributed for conference
- Aug 27, 2025Petition filed with the Court
Grant v. Higgins
No. 25-566
Connecticut's law making it a felony to possess semi-automatic rifles — including the AR-15 — acquired after April 3, 2013
What the Court agreed to decide
Granted June 30, 2026 and consolidated with Viramontes v. Cook County. The consolidated argument will be heard on the question presented in Viramontes — whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect AR-15-platform and similar semi-automatic rifles in common use. One hour total argument.
What's next
Argument is expected in the fall (October Term 2026); date not yet set. Justice Kavanaugh signaled in Snope v. Brown (2025) that the Court "should and presumably will" address the AR-15 question soon, and that there is a "strong argument" these rifles are constitutionally protected — this is the vehicle that prediction pointed to.
Timeline (from official SCOTUS docket)
- Jun 30, 2026Cert granted; consolidated with Viramontes v. Cook County
- Jun 25, 2026Distributed for conference — no action
- Jun 18, 2026Distributed for conference — no action
- Feb 20, 2026First distributed for conference
- Nov 7, 2025Petition filed with the Court
Waiting to Be Accepted or Rejected3
The Court is deciding whether to hear these cases. All dates are from the official SCOTUS docket.
What to watch: At the term's final "clean-up" conference (June 29; orders released June 30, 2026), the Court granted the two rifle cases that had been in this cluster — Viramontes and Grant, now consolidated and awaiting argument (see Being Decided This Term). It took no action on the three cases below. Duncan and Gator's challenge large-capacity-magazine bans; NAGR v. Lamont raises both the rifle and the magazine question. All three are held over and carry to the long conference in late September 2026 unless the Court acts sooner. The widely expected reason the magazine cases were held: the Court appears to be waiting on the Third Circuit's en banc ruling in the New Jersey magazine case to sharpen the circuit split before taking the question up.
Duncan v. Bonta
No. 25-198
California's 10-round magazine limit — can states cap how many rounds a magazine can hold?
Where things stand
One of the longest relist streaks in recent memory. At the June 30, 2026 clean-up conference the Court passed it over again without action and held it for the fall. California owners are protected by a court-issued hold while this plays out; if cert is eventually denied, that hold lifts and owners could face penalties for possession.
Potential impact
If accepted and ruled unconstitutional, magazine limits in more than a dozen states could be struck down. If the Court declines, California's ban takes full effect and future challenges face a much harder road.
Timeline (from official SCOTUS docket)
- Jun 30, 2026Passed over at the term's clean-up conference — held over to the next term
- Jun 25, 2026Distributed for conference — no action
- Jun 18, 2026Distributed for conference — no action
- Jun 4, 2026Distributed for conference — no action
- Nov 21, 2025First distributed for conference
- Aug 15, 2025Petition filed with the Court
Gator's Custom Guns v. Washington
No. 25-153
Washington state's ban on making and selling magazines that hold more than 10 rounds
Where things stand
Among the longest active relist streaks of any 2A case this term. Washington's law bans the manufacture and sale of standard-capacity magazines — not just possession — making it broader than most state restrictions. The Court held it alongside Duncan and passed both over at the June 30, 2026 clean-up conference; they carry to the fall.
Potential impact
A ruling against Washington could undo not just possession limits but commercial restrictions on standard-capacity magazines across multiple states.
Timeline (from official SCOTUS docket)
- Jun 30, 2026Passed over at the term's clean-up conference — held over to the next term
- Jun 25, 2026Distributed for conference — no action
- Jun 18, 2026Distributed for conference — no action
- Jun 4, 2026Distributed for conference — no action
- Sep 29, 2025First distributed for conference
- Aug 6, 2025Petition filed with the Court
Nat'l Assoc. for Gun Rights v. Lamont
No. 25-421
Connecticut's ban on AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles, plus magazines over 10 rounds
Where things stand
Its companions Viramontes and Grant were granted on June 30, 2026 — but NAGR v. Lamont was held over. The likely reason: unlike those two pure rifle cases, this petition also raises the large-capacity-magazine question, and the Court is holding the magazine cases (Duncan, Gator's) rather than taking them up now. The 2nd Circuit upheld Connecticut's ban in August 2025.
Potential impact
A later grant could pair the rifle and magazine questions in a single case. For now the rifle question moves forward without it, through the consolidated Viramontes/Grant argument.
Timeline (from official SCOTUS docket)
- Jun 30, 2026Passed over at the term's clean-up conference — held over (companions Viramontes & Grant granted)
- Jun 25, 2026Distributed for conference — no action
- Jun 18, 2026Distributed for conference — no action
- Jun 4, 2026Distributed for conference — no action
- Oct 3, 2025Petition filed with the Court
- Aug 22, 20252nd Circuit upheld Connecticut's ban
Also Pending — Who Can Own a Gun0
These cases asked whether age-based restrictions on buying firearms are constitutional under the Second Amendment.
Resolved June 30, 2026. The Court denied certiorari in all three age-restriction petitions it had been holding — McCoy v. ATF, W.V. Citizens Defense League v. ATF, and Bivens v. Second Amendment Foundation. Justice Thomas noted he would have granted review in WVCDL. The denials in McCoy and WVCDL leave the federal ban on handgun sales to 18–20-year-olds intact within the Fourth Circuit, while the unresolved split with the Fifth Circuit (Reese v. ATF) means the age question will return in a future case. The denial in Bivens cuts the other way: it leaves the Third Circuit's pro-gun-rights ruling — which struck down Pennsylvania's age-21 minimum — in place. All three now appear under Court Declined to Hear below.
Court Declined to Hear7
These cases asked the Supreme Court to intervene but were turned away. The lower court rulings stand.
What "cert denied" means: The Court receives thousands of petitions each year and only accepts roughly 60–80 cases. A denial is not a ruling on the merits — it simply means the Court chose not to hear the case. Four justices must vote to accept ("grant cert") for a case to move forward. When the Court refuses, the most recent lower court ruling becomes the final word.
McCoy v. ATF
No. 25-24
Can the federal government ban licensed gun dealers from selling handguns to adults aged 18–20?
What happened
Denied June 30, 2026. Federal law bars licensed dealers from selling handguns to anyone under 21. The 4th Circuit upheld that ban in June 2025, and the denial leaves it in force within the Fourth Circuit. The government had declined to seek review after the 5th Circuit struck down the same law in Reese v. ATF — so a circuit split remains, unresolved by this denial.
What it means going forward
The federal age ban stands in the Fourth Circuit for now. Because the Fourth and Fifth Circuits disagree, the question is likely to return to the Court in a future case with a cleaner vehicle.
Key dates
- Jun 30, 2026Cert denied — federal age ban left intact in the 4th Circuit
- Nov 2025Distributed for conference — held with companion cases
- Jul 2025Petition for certiorari filed
- Jun 18, 20254th Circuit upheld the federal age ban
W.V. Citizens Defense League v. ATF
No. 25-132
A companion challenge to the federal handgun-sales ban for 18–20-year-olds, brought by an organization to avoid the "aging out" problem
What happened
Denied June 30, 2026, alongside McCoy. WVCDL filed as an organization — which never turns 21 — to keep the challenge from becoming moot as individual plaintiffs age out. The denial leaves the federal age ban intact in the Fourth Circuit.
What it means going forward
Same effect as McCoy. The unresolved Fourth/Fifth Circuit split keeps the issue alive for a future term.
Justice Thomas would have granted the petition for a writ of certiorari.
Key dates
- Jun 30, 2026Cert denied — Justice Thomas would have granted
- Nov 2025Distributed for conference — held alongside McCoy
- Aug 2025Petition for certiorari filed
- Jun 18, 20254th Circuit precedent (McCoy) controlling
Bivens v. Second Amendment Foundation
No. 24-1329
Pennsylvania's bid to revive its age-21 minimum — the state asked the Court to reverse a ruling that went for gun-rights groups
What happened
Denied June 30, 2026. Unlike most cases here, this petition was filed by Pennsylvania — State Police Commissioner George Bivens — asking the Court to reverse a Third Circuit ruling that struck down the state's age-21 minimum. By denying review, the Court left that pro-gun-rights ruling in place. (Originally docketed as Paris v. Second Amendment Foundation; the petitioner name changed in April 2026.)
What it means going forward
A win for the gun-rights side by denial — the Third Circuit's decision against Pennsylvania's age-21 minimum stands. Because it points the opposite way from the Fourth Circuit's McCoy/WVCDL line, the broader age-restriction question remains split and unresolved nationally.
Key dates
- Jun 30, 2026Cert denied — Third Circuit ruling left intact
- Nov 2025Distributed for conference — held alongside McCoy and WVCDL
- Jun 2025Petition for certiorari filed by Pennsylvania State Police
- Jan 20253rd Circuit struck down Pennsylvania's age-21 minimum
Gardner v. Maryland
No. 25-5961
Can a state prosecute an out-of-state visitor for carrying a handgun, even when she has a valid permit from her home state and was acting lawfully under its laws?
What happened
Eva Gardner, a Virginia resident with a valid Virginia concealed carry permit, was driving through Maryland when another driver struck her car twice on I-270 and approached her vehicle aggressively. She displayed her handgun. Maryland prosecutors charged and convicted her of carrying without a Maryland permit — a crime she couldn't avoid because Maryland does not recognize Virginia permits. The Court denied cert on April 22, 2026, leaving her conviction and Maryland's approach to out-of-state carriers in place.
What it means going forward
The denial was widely criticized in the gun rights community. There is still no national standard for concealed carry reciprocity — a lawful act in one state can be a felony the moment a driver crosses into another. The issue will eventually return to the Court; this denial simply means it won't be resolved in the current term.
Key dates
- Apr 22, 2026Cert denied — Maryland conviction stands
- Dec 2025Petition for certiorari filed
- 2025Maryland Court of Appeals denied appeal
- 2022Montgomery County jury convicted Gardner
Schoenthal v. Raoul
No. 25-541
Illinois's ban on carrying a firearm on public transit — buses, trains, and the subway — even with a valid concealed carry permit
What happened
The Court denied cert on April 6, 2026, leaving Illinois's public transit carry ban in place. The 7th Circuit had upheld the ban in September 2025, calling crowded public transit a "sensitive place" where carry restrictions are permitted under Bruen. No justice wrote to explain the denial or dissent from it.
What it means going forward
Illinois's transit carry ban stands. The denial also leaves unresolved a major open question from Bruen: what exactly qualifies as a "sensitive place" where states can restrict carry. That issue will continue to percolate in lower courts and is likely to return to SCOTUS in a future case.
Key dates
- Apr 6, 2026Cert denied — Illinois transit carry ban stands
- Mar 20, 2026Distributed for conference
- Oct 31, 2025Petition filed with the Court
- Sep 2, 20257th Circuit upheld Illinois's transit carry ban
Snope v. Brown
No. 24-869
Does the Second Amendment protect the right to own AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles?
What happened
After being relisted 15 times, the Court denied cert on June 2, 2025, letting Maryland's ban on AR-15s and similar rifles stand. The Fourth Circuit had upheld the ban by ruling that such rifles are not protected "arms" under the Second Amendment — a conclusion critics say directly contradicts Bruen. No majority wrote to explain the denial.
What it means going forward
Maryland's ban remains in effect. The denial was a significant setback for gun rights advocates, but the issue is far from settled — the rifle question is now squarely before the Court in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, granted June 30, 2026 (see Being Decided This Term).
Justice Thomas dissented, writing he "would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America." Justice Kavanaugh wrote separately that the Court should wait "a Term or two" for lower courts to further develop the issue — and that there is a "strong argument" the AR-15 is constitutionally protected.
Key dates
- Jun 2, 2025Cert denied — Thomas dissents, Kavanaugh writes separately
- Feb 2025Relisted for the 15th consecutive conference
- Aug 20244th Circuit upheld Maryland's semi-auto rifle ban
Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island
No. 24-918
Does Rhode Island's ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds violate the Second Amendment?
What happened
Denied on the same day as Snope, June 2, 2025. The First Circuit had ruled against the challengers by holding that the ban on standard-capacity magazines does not place a "meaningful burden" on the right to keep and bear arms — a test critics say has no basis in Bruen. Rhode Island's magazine ban remains in effect.
What it means going forward
Together with Snope, this was a deeply discouraging day for gun rights advocates. The magazine question stays alive through Duncan v. Bonta and Gator's Custom Guns, which the Court held over on June 30, 2026 (see Waiting to Be Accepted or Rejected).
Key dates
- Jun 2, 2025Cert denied alongside Snope v. Brown
- 20241st Circuit upheld Rhode Island's magazine ban