Supreme Court to hear assault-weapons ban cases on Dec. 2

As of 8:12 a.m. ET, Monday, Nov. 2, 2026

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on Wednesday, Dec. 2, in two challenges to bans on AR-15-style rifles, cases that could decide whether states and local governments may prohibit the guns.

The court's docket shows the consolidated cases, Viramontes v. Cook County, Illinois (No. 25-238) and Grant v. Higgins (No. 25-566), "SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, December 2, 2026." The justices agreed on June 30 to hear both and allotted one hour in total for argument.

The question, as SCOTUSblog summarizes it, is whether the Second and 14th Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.

The two cases

In Viramontes, challengers contest Cook County's ban on possessing AR-15s and similar rifles. In Grant, challengers argue that Connecticut's assault-weapons ban unconstitutionally restricts firearms "in common use for lawful purposes," Duke University's Center for Firearms Law wrote when the court took the cases. The challengers lost in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in June 2025 and in the 2nd Circuit in August 2025.

On Oct. 29, the docket shows, the petitioners submitted a motion to dismiss Cutberto Viramontes, the lead challenger in the Cook County case, as a petitioner under the court's Rule 46.2. The docket entry gives no reason, and the court had not acted on it as of Monday morning. The case includes other challengers.

The challengers' case

The Second Amendment Foundation, which backs both suits, says states may not "categorically ban a widely defined class of the most commonly possessed firearms in the country." Its brief argues that "AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles" fall "squarely within" the category of arms in common use, so "a categorical ban of such weapons therefore violates the Second Amendment."

"The Second Amendment demands that it is 'the People' who get to choose what firearm is best suited to their lawful needs, not an ideologue legislator," said Adam Kraut, the foundation's executive director. The Connecticut Citizens Defense League, also a party in Grant, quoted its brief: "there can be no doubt that AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles are in common use and therefore protected by the Second Amendment."

The United States filed a friend-of-the-court brief on Sept. 4 in support of the challengers, and Solicitor General D. John Sauer has asked to take part in the argument, according to the Justice Department and the docket. Other briefs backing the challengers came from gun-rights groups and from Sen. Ted Cruz and other lawmakers.

In a 2025 statement on an earlier case, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that there is "a strong argument that AR-15s are in 'common use' by law-abiding citizens and therefore are protected by the Second Amendment," Duke's center noted.

The defense of the bans

Connecticut Attorney General Tong said his state's 2013 law, passed after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, is "lawful, lifesaving, and broadly supported." His office said its Oct. 21 brief argues that AR-15s are "unusually dangerous" and that the ban fits "a long historical tradition of regulating weapons unusually capable of causing death and destruction."

The brief rejects the idea that legislatures may not regulate weapons in "common use," Tong's office said, warning it would create an "unworkable 'use-it-or-lose-it' view of legislative authority." Former U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar will argue for Connecticut. Cook County also filed its brief on Oct. 21, the docket shows.

Dozens of briefs backing the bans were filed Oct. 28. They include filings from Massachusetts and other states, Virginia, the New York City Police Department, police chiefs' groups, gun-safety organizations such as Everytown, Brady and Giffords, Sandy Hook Promise, and survivors of the Parkland, Highland Park and Route 91 Harvest festival shootings.

The Governors Safer Communities Initiative filed one as well. Delaware Gov. Matt Meyer is among 11 governors who signed it, Delaware Public Media reported. The brief argues that governors are responsible for their states' emergency response, public health and victim-services systems.

A ruling is expected by the end of the court's term, which typically wraps up by early summer.