One week after the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would consider whether there is a Constitutional right to possess assault weapons — by taking up a challenge to Cook County’s assault weapons ban — the federal appeals court in Chicago sided Thursday with Gov. JB Pritzker on the validity of Illinois’ statewide ban.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that Illinois’ ban on AR-15s and 30-round rifle magazines “are consistent with the principles that underpin our nation’s tradition of firearm regulation.” Judge Amy St. Eve wrote the opinion, which was joined by Judge Frank Easterbrook.
Chief Judge Michael Brennan dissented.
The Supreme Court is likely to have the final say on the Constitutional question — and whether Illinois’ ban ultimately survives. The high court is on track to rule around the five-year anniversary of the 2022 Highland Park Fourth of July parade shooting. The massacre, which left seven dead, inspired the statewide assault weapons ban.
The Highland Park gunman used an AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle.
Illinois’ prohibition on assault weapons was a signature achievement of Gov. JB Pritzker. It bans the sale of assault weapons like the AR-15 and caps the purchase of magazines at 10 rounds for long guns and 15 for handguns. Pritzker, who has not ruled out a 2028 presidential run, signed the ban into law in 2023.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, the head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, took the unusual step in September of traveling to Chicago to briefly participate in arguments over the weapons ban before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Though her portion of the 90-minute hearing lasted about five minutes, the move was hailed by gun-rights advocates who oppose the law.
Dhillon rejected a previous decision by the appeals court to uphold the assault weapons ban, arguing that the AR-15 and similar guns are “clearly” protected by the Second Amendment.
A 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling laid out a two-step test for such gun laws. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the justices held that if an individual’s conduct is covered by the Second Amendment, the government must then demonstrate that the law is “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
But the 7th Circuit sided with Pritzker the next year, in 2023, finding that the weapons covered by Illinois’ law don’t have Second Amendment protection because they “are much more like machine guns and military-grade weaponry” than like other firearms used for self-defense.
The panel in 2023 was considering whether the law should be blocked by a preliminary injunction. This time around, the judges considered whether to uphold U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn’s November 2024 ruling that the law is unconstitutional.
The latest panel to rule was made up of three judges appointed by Republican presidents. Easterbrook was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, while Brennan and St. Eve were appointed by President Donald Trump.
McGlynn, the lower-court judge, was also appointed by Trump. McGlynn opened his 168-page ruling in November 2024 by asking, “why do we protect ourselves with firearms?”
“Who comes to our aid in times of peril?” he wrote. “Sometimes, it is the police or first responders; other times it is healthcare professionals; and sometimes it is family, friends, or neighbors. Sometimes, it is no one.”
“The AR-15 is the Rorschach test of America’s gun debate,” he wrote. “In listening to the political debate and in reading various judicial interpretations of what the AR-15 represents, it is obvious that many are seeing very different creatures.”
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.