
Kavanaugh signals Supreme Court will soon decide constitutionality of banning AR-15's
The Supreme Court declined to take up Monday a case that involves whether possessing AR-15s is protected by the Second Amendment, but the court's conservatives are signaling they soon will.
Only three justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — voted to hear a challenge to Maryland's ban on possessing AR-15s, barely falling short of the four votes required to take up a case.
But Justice Brett Kavanaugh sent a strong signal that he will provide that crucial fourth vote in a future case once the issue percolates more in the lower courts.
'In my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two,' Kavanaugh wrote in a three-page written statement.
Kavanaugh, President Trump's second appointee to the court, called Maryland's law 'questionable.' But he stressed the issue is currently being considered by several appeals courts that are weighing other states' bans.
'Opinions from other Courts of Appeals should assist this Court's ultimate decisionmaking on the AR–15 issue,' Kavanaugh wrote.
The constitutionality of such laws has become a flashpoint in the legal battles over gun control. The Supreme Court has issued multiple expansions of Second Amendment rights in recent years but has yet to settle how those rulings apply to AR-15 bans.
Maryland is one of nine states that have banned the possession of AR-15s, the most popular civilian rifle in America. Maryland enacted its law in 2013 following the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Maryland's law by ruling AR-15s are not 'constitutionally protected arms' under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case leaves intact that ruling.
The trio of other conservative justices said they would've taken up the issue now.
'I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America. That question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR–15 owners throughout the country. We have avoided deciding it for a full decade,' Thomas wrote in a solo, written dissent.
He added, 'I doubt we would sit idly by if lower courts were to so subvert our precedents involving any other constitutional right.'
Alito and Gorsuch did not join Thomas's written dissent and did not author their own to explain their reasoning.
The court's refusal to hear the case came as they also turned away a challenge to Rhode Island's ban on high-capacity magazines. Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch indicated they also would've taken up that case.
In that dispute, four gun owners and a local hunting store accused lower courts of contorting the Supreme Court's recent expansions on Second Amendment rights to uphold Rhode Island's restrictions.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lawyers for man mistakenly deported from US say he should be freed while DOJ pursues new charges
By Dietrich Knauth and Luc Cohen (Reuters) -Lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador in March and returned on Friday, said their client should be set free while the U.S. Department of Justice pursues new criminal charges against him. The U.S. Department of Justice on Friday had asked a federal judge in Tennessee to detain Abrego Garcia while he is prosecuted on newly-filed charges of transporting illegal immigrants within the United States. The motion filed on Wednesday said Abrego Garcia had already been imprisoned without due process and he posed no danger to the community and no flight risk. 'Mr. Abrego Garcia asks the Court for what he has been denied the past several months – due process,' Abrego Garcia's attorneys wrote in Wednesday's court filing. 'Mr. Abrego Garcia must be released.' Abrego Garcia on March 15 was deported to El Salvador, despite a 2019 immigration court ruling that he should not be sent there because he could be persecuted by gangs, and the incident has become a flashpoint for Republican President Donald Trump's aggressive immigration policies. The Trump administration has said Abrego Garcia was a member of the MS-13 gang, an accusation his lawyers deny. Trump administration officials have accused the judiciary of interfering with the executive branch's ability to conduct foreign policy, and they portrayed Abrego Garcia's criminal indictment as vindication for their approach to deportations. A grand jury in Nashville, Tennessee, on May 21 indicted him on charges of transporting undocumented migrants from the U.S.-Mexico border to locations around the country. Abrego Garcia remains detained pending his next court hearing on Friday. His lawyer Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg has called the criminal charges "fantastical" and a "kitchen sink" of allegations.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Gun rights advocates contest Illinois' ban on assault weapons and magazines
ILLINOIS (WTVO) — Gun rights advocates are asking the 7th Circuit Court of appeals to overturn Illinois' ban on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines. Capitol News Illinois reported that attorneys for groups seeking to overturn the law filed briefs last week asking the court to uphold the ruling of a district court judge in East St. Louis, who said the state law violates the Second Amendment. The filings come just days after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal involving similar laws in Maryland and Rhode Island. The 7th Circuit Court had previously refused to block enforcement of the law while the cases work their way through the courts. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Brazil's top court votes to hold social media platforms accountable for user posts
By Ricardo Brito BRASILIA (Reuters) -Brazil's Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that social media companies must be held accountable for some types of content published by users on their platforms in the country, but details on the decision have yet to be resolved. Six of the 11 Supreme Court judges voted to hold platforms responsible for third-party content seen as illegal, in a decision that could result in fines against social media companies for not removing some users' posts in the country. The decision could impact the business of platforms including Meta's Facebook and Instagram, as well as TikTok, Elon Musk's X and other internet giants, such as Alphabet's Google, in a market of more than 200 million people. Only one justice so far voted to not change the current law on the matter, which says that the companies can only be found responsible for third-party content on their platforms if the firms do not comply with a legal decision ordering the content removal. Writing for the majority, Justice Gilmar Mendes said current Brazilian law represents "a veil of irresponsibility for digital platforms." "Even if they are informed of the occurrence of crimes on their platforms, they (currently) cannot be held responsible for damages caused by keeping this content online, except in the case of a court order," he said. Asked to comment, Meta sent a 2024 statement where it had said that a decision holding platforms responsible could make them "liable for virtually all types of content even without having been notified." In a statement sent before the vote which gave the court a majority, Google said the current Brazilian law regarding social media can and should be improved, "as long as procedure guarantees and criteria are set to prevent legal uncertainty and the indiscriminate content removal." TikTok and a representative of X in Brazil did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The court did not agree on the scope of the decision, such as what types of content would be considered illegal. The court's head, Luis Roberto Barroso, said he will work with the court members to find a consensus. Four judges still need to vote in the trial, which has been rolling over for months. Votes previously cast can still be changed, although that is not common. The trial is set to resume on Thursday.