Introduction to the Case
The Trump Justice Department’s top civil rights official, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, rejected a federal appeals court’s past decision to uphold Illinois’ assault weapons ban. She argued in court that the AR-15 and similar guns are “clearly” protected by the Second Amendment. This statement was made during a hearing at the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where Dhillon briefly participated in the arguments.
The Hearing
Dhillon’s appearance at the hearing raised its profile, and her portion of the 90-minute hearing lasted about five minutes. Judge Frank Easterbrook, who had joined the 2023 decision that helped keep the law in place, questioned Dhillon. He asked whether a lower court judge’s fact-finding affected her view, to which she replied that it didn’t. Easterbrook then retorted, “You don’t think the facts matter.” Dhillon responded, “Facts, of course, do matter.”
The Law in Question
The law, a signature achievement of Gov. JB Pritzker, 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 signed the ban into law in 2023 following the 2022 Highland Park parade shooting, which left seven dead. The Highland Park gunman used an AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle.
Assault rifles are displayed at Coastal Trading and Pawn in 2022 in Auburn, Maine.
The Supreme Court Ruling
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.” Certain Supreme Court justices have since shown an interest in considering a law like Illinois’. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote last year that, if the 7th Circuit “ultimately allows Illinois to ban America’s most common civilian rifle, we can — and should — review that decision once the cases reach a final judgment.”
The 7th Circuit’s Previous Ruling
The 7th Circuit sided with Pritzker in 2023, finding that the weapons covered by the 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 ruling was written by Judge Diane Wood, who was joined by Easterbrook. Judge Michael Brennan dissented.
The Current Case
The judges are now considering whether to uphold U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn’s ruling in November that the law is unconstitutional. Easterbrook and Brennan were joined this time by Judge Amy St. Eve, who probed attorneys on both sides of the case. She asked an attorney challenging the law about the use of the covered weapons in mass shootings. Attorney Erin Murphy countered, “Every weapon is incredibly dangerous in the hands of someone who wants to misuse it.”
Conclusion
It’s not clear how, or when, the panel will rule on the constitutionality of the law. The case has significant implications for gun laws in Illinois and potentially nationwide. As the appeals court considers the case, the nation waits for a decision that could have far-reaching consequences.
FAQs
Q: What is the law in question?
A: The law 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.
Q: Who signed the law into effect?
A: Gov. JB Pritzker signed the law into effect in 2023.
Q: What was the basis for the 7th Circuit’s previous ruling?
A: The 7th Circuit sided with Pritzker in 2023, finding that the weapons covered by the 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.
Q: What is the current status of the case?
A: The case is currently being considered by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is weighing whether to uphold U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn’s ruling that the law is unconstitutional.
