On Monday, the Supreme Court made a significant decision by opting not to hear two critical gun-rights cases. This ruling effectively maintains Maryland’s ban on semiautomatic military-style rifles and Rhode Island’s restrictions on large-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The court's choice to bypass these cases highlights an ongoing division among justices regarding the interpretation of the Second Amendment, especially following a landmark decision in 2022 that expanded gun rights.
The court's decision drew dissent from three conservative justices, underscoring the contentious nature of Second Amendment jurisprudence. Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the Supreme Court should have reviewed the lower court ruling in the Maryland case, emphasizing the critical importance of the issue to millions of law-abiding AR-15 owners nationwide. He expressed concern that delaying this decision could undermine the rights of gun owners throughout the country.
Joining Justice Thomas in dissent were Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch, both of whom expressed similar views regarding the necessity of addressing these pivotal Second Amendment questions.
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, while agreeing with the decision to sidestep these cases for now, issued a separate statement cautioning against overinterpreting the court's inaction. He described the lower court's ruling that upheld Maryland's law as "questionable" and suggested that the Supreme Court should eventually tackle the legality of bans on assault-style rifles like the AR-15 within the next couple of terms.
The decision to decline the gun-rights cases coincided with the court's announcement to hear four other significant cases in the upcoming term. One of these cases involves a challenge from an Illinois congressman and two Republican presidential electors concerning a state law that permits the collection and counting of absentee ballots after Election Day, which they argue violates federal election statutes.
Another case concerns a U.S. Army specialist, Winston Hencely, who was gravely injured by a suicide bomber while serving in Afghanistan. He is seeking a ruling that would hold federal contractors accountable under state law, despite claims of immunity. Additionally, the justices will examine a class-action lawsuit from migrants alleging forced labor in a private detention facility in Colorado, raising questions about the contractor's sovereign immunity. Lastly, the court will review standards for warrantless entry by law enforcement in emergency situations, a topic that has seen varying interpretations in lower courts.
Maryland's ban on high-powered rifles was enacted in response to the tragic 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, during which an AR-15 was used to kill 20 children and six adults. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld Maryland’s restrictions, aligning them with the Second Amendment as part of a longstanding tradition of regulating dangerous weapons to enhance public safety. Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a Reagan appointee, pointed to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller as foundational to this interpretation.
The Supreme Court's ruling in 2022 further expanded gun rights in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen case, requiring the government to provide historical analogs when defending laws that impose gun restrictions. Earlier this term, the court also upheld a ban on ghost guns, continuing its complex relationship with gun legislation.
Gun rights advocates challenging Maryland's law highlighted that AR-15s and similar rifles are among the best-selling firearms in the U.S., owned by millions and representing a substantial portion of all firearm sales for over a decade. They urged the Supreme Court to protect the Second Amendment from becoming a limited right, constrained by state approvals for self-defense.
Maryland's Attorney General Anthony G. Brown expressed satisfaction with the Supreme Court's decision, stating that it allows a vital law aimed at reducing preventable violence to remain in effect. His office remains committed to safeguarding the lives of Marylanders against gun violence.
In the Rhode Island case, an appeals court upheld the state's ban on high-capacity magazines, determining it does not significantly burden residents' ability to defend themselves. The court reasoned that civilian self-defense rarely necessitates rapid-fire capabilities beyond ten shots, affirming the law's alignment with broader public safety initiatives.
The law, which responds to increasing mass shooting incidents, mandates owners to comply within 180 days by modifying or disposing of their magazines. This ruling reflects a growing trend among states to regulate firearms and their accessories in an effort to combat gun violence.
The Supreme Court's recent actions underscore the ongoing debate surrounding gun rights and regulations in the United States. As the court continues to navigate complex cases involving the Second Amendment, its decisions will undoubtedly shape the future landscape of gun ownership and public safety in America.
