Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenges to Cook County, Illinois and Connecticut Assault Weapons Bans
On June 30, 2026, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in two closely watched Second Amendment cases challenging local and state bans on AR-15-style rifles, one out of Cook County, Illinois, and one out of Connecticut. The cases will be argued and decided during the Court’s next term, which begins in October 2026. Cook County’s ordinance, known as the Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban, bars residents from owning, buying, or transferring AR-15s and roughly 125 other types of rifles. First adopted in 1993 and updated since, the ban was upheld by the Seventh Circuit in 2015 and again in 2019, which the Supreme Court declined to review in the past, although certain justices previewed that they were likely to grant review in the future as more cases and circuit splits mounted. The current challenge, brought by Cook County residents Cutberto Viramontes and Christopher Khaya along with gun rights organizations, argues that the AR-15 is owned by tens of millions of law-abiding Americans and therefore cannot be considered a “dangerous and unusual” weapon subject to a categorical ban. The companion Connecticut case involves that state’s assault weapons law, tightened after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which the Second Circuit upheld under the historical-tradition framework the Supreme Court established in its 2022 decision recognizing a right to carry firearms in public.
What Does This Mean for Those Already Convicted or Facing Criminal Charges?
Both Illinois and federal prosecutors in Illinois regularly bring weapons charges involving semiautomatic rifles and other firearms covered by assault weapons statutes. A Supreme Court ruling striking down these bans, or even significantly narrowing how they can be applied, could directly affect the viability of pending and future possession charges premised on these laws and even allow for challenges to past convictions, depending on how the Court rules and whether any relief could be retroactive. However, for practical purposes this should not have a huge effect, because the prosecutions usually hinge on the defendant being a felon or prohibited person in possession of a firearm, not a prosecution for possession of a banned type of weapon by an otherwise lawful possessor of firearms. With that said, if the law is declared unconstitutional, it could have a similar outcome for many Illinois residents who challenged their convictions under a previous statute limiting gun possession outside the home that was later ruled unconstitutional by the Illinois Supreme Court in the landmark 2013 decision in People v. Aguilar that saw many people seeking to overturn their previous convictions. While the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, anyone seeking similar reprieves will have to wait for likely around a year before they rule on the matter, and there is no guarantee how the Court will rule, although it has recently generally found to be in favor of Second Amendment challengers. Cook County State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke has signaled the County intends to vigorously defend the ordinance and until the Court rules otherwise, the existing bans remain in full force, and prosecutions under them will continue. Defendants currently facing charges should not automatically assume relief is coming, but they should be building the record now to take advantage of it if it does. In appropriate cases, it may be worth seeking a stay or continuance pending the Supreme Court’s decision, particularly where a client’s exposure turns substantially on a weapons count tied to a banned rifle.
