Illinois' so-called "assault weapons" ban will remain in effect for months more, at least, as the U.S. Supreme Court indicated it wouldn't step in to hear challenges to the law at this point, possibly waiting until a federal appeals court delivers a final ruling on the various challenges now pending in federal district court.
On July 2, the U.S. Supreme Court denied petitions for review filed by various groups of Illinois gun owners, firearms shop owners and Second Amendment rights advocates. Those petitioners had asked the high court to reverse a ruling from the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which had allowed the Illinois law to take effect because two of the three judges rejected a request for an injunction, saying they believed the Second Amendment doesn't protect weapons the state classifies as too "dangerous" or too similar to weapons used by the U.S. military.
In announcing the denial of the petition, the U.S. Supreme Court indicated only one justice, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, voted to grant the petitions.
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul pledged to continue defending the Illinois "assault weapons" ban
| kwameraoul.com
In that statement, Thomas described the Seventh Circuit decision as "nonsensical" and "contrived." He asserted the court's reasoning had led to a "contorting" of prior Supreme Court decisions, by specifically declaring that the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle - which Thomas noted is "the most popular semi-automatic rifle in America" - can easily be banned under the Second Amendment.
"In my view, Illinois' ban is 'highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes,'" Thomas wrote. "It is difficult to see how the Seventh Circuit could have concluded that the most widely owned semiautomatic rifles are not 'Arms' protected by the Second Amendment."
In his statement, Thomas indicated the high court had opted to pass on the Illinois gun ban cases essentially because the appeals were premature, as the Seventh Circuit has not yet rendered a final judgment on the merits of the case. Instead, to this point, the rulings have centered on the attempts by gun owners and their advocates to secure an injunction blocking the state from enforcing the law.
Thomas said the court is "rightly wary of taking cases" at this point in the proceedings, even if, as he indicated, the lower courts' rulings allow the state to trespass constitutional rights in apparent defiance of prior Supreme Court rulings.
"These petitions arise from a preliminary injunction, and the Seventh Circuit stressed that its merits analysis was merely 'a preliminary look at the subject,'" Thomas wrote. "But, if the Seventh 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 Court must not permit ' the Seventh Circuit to relegate the Second Amendment to a second-class right,'" Thomas said.
For now, however, the Supreme Court's refusal to take up the cases amounts to a decision to allow Gov. Pritzker and his Democratic allies to continue to enforce the so-called Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA), a constitutionally questionable law that threatens Illinois gun owners with imprisonment and fines, and threatens gun shop owners with financial ruin.
The PICA law was signed into law by Pritzker in January 2023, and took effect Jan. 1, 2024.
The law includes several provisions banning a long list of semiautomatic firearms and so-called "large capacity magazines," which the state defined as ammunition magazines which can hold more than 10 rounds.
Pritzker and other supporters of the law say it is needed to reduce future mass shootings, such as the massacre carried out by a lone gunman possessing an "assault rifle" at the 2022 Fourth of July parade in suburban Highland Park.
Second Amendment rights supporters, however, say the law is a blatant violation of the Second Amendment, particularly as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in recent decisions known as District of Columbia v Heller and New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen.
In those decisions, the Supreme Court created tests for states and courts to use when evaluating if such restrictions are constitutional. Those tests require courts and lawmakers to evaluate if the weapons being banned are both dangerous and unusual, and if the restrictions are in keeping with U.S. history and tradition dating back to the ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791 and the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.
Attempts to block the law have failed to this point, as federal judges in Chicago have rejected petitions for injunctions, and Seventh Circuit judges Frank Easterbrook and Diane Wood have agreed that they do not believe the law violates the Second Amendment.
In that Seventh Circuit decision, Easterbrook and Wood notably said they do not believe the Second Amendment protects the banned weapons at all, because they are too dangerous and too closely resemble "military-grade" weapons. They notably compared the semiautomatic AR-15 rifle to its fully automatic "military-grade" cousin, the M-16. They reasoned that since federal law prohibits ownership of such fully automatic rifles, then states should be free to ban any semiautomatic firearms they deem too similar.
Semiautomatic weapons fire one round for each time the trigger is pulled. Fully automatic "machine gun" weapons can spray numerous bullets each time the trigger is squeezed.
Challengers asserted the Seventh Circuit's decision had offered the perfect opportunity for the Supreme Court to deliver a message to the lower courts that its decisions cannot be ignored or revised at will, simply because judges and state lawmakers believe the decisions make it too difficult for them to restrict gun ownership.
With the Supreme Court's action, attention on the laws will return to federal courts in Illinois. In Southern Illinois, U.S. District Judge Steven McGlynn has scheduled a trial on the merits of the challenges to the PICA law in September.
McGlynn has signaled he intends to be aggressive in moving forward with proceedings, to prevent them from languishing in court any longer than necessary.
McGlynn in 2023 had issued an injunction blocking the law from taking effect, which was overturned last fall by Easterbrook and Wood.
It is not known as this point when the Seventh Circuit may take up the question.
In the meantime, the Seventh Circuit is preparing to hear arguments on an appeal on the merits concerning the constitutionality of a similar "assault weapons" ban imposed in Cook County. Second Amendment rights' advocacy group Firearms Policy Coalition filed an opening brief in that case in late June.
In response to the Supreme Court action, the National Association for Gun Rights, another Second Amendment advocacy group backing the challenges, blasted the Supreme Court's refusal to take up the cases, potentially allowing the Seventh Circuit to take years before allowing the cases to return to the Supreme Court.
"Today's decision tells the lower courts they're more than welcome to trample Bruen to their hearts' content - at least for the time being," said Hannah Hill, executive director for the National Foundation for Gun Rights in a release following the Supreme Court's action.
"The question all along has been whether the Supreme Court was okay with the lower courts' outright and unanimous defiance of the plain holdings of Bruen. Today, we got our answer: for now at least, the Second Amendment is a second-class right, and it will remain so until the Supreme Court decides to stop ducking the issue."
Other groups involved in the legal challenges, including the Firearms Policy Coalition and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said they were disappointed by the decision, but intended to continue to press their legal challenges until the cases can receive a hearing from the U.S. Supreme Court.
“We are disappointed the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to accept this challenge at this time to what is clearly an unconstitutional law,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. “The Modern Sporting Rifle – or AR-15-style rifle – is the most popular-selling centerfire rifle in America, used for lawful purposes every day. That includes recreational target shooting, hunting and self-defense. These rifles are clearly ‘Arms’ that are protected by the Second Amendment for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear.”
State officials, however, praised the Supreme Court's decision.
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul said he was "pleased" the court chose not to step in at this point, and intended to continue to defend the law in court.
“With today’s Supreme Court decision, the Protect Illinois Communities Act remains the law of the land, and my office will continue to vigorously defend its constitutionality as litigation returns to the lower courts," Raoul said in a statement.
"Assault weapons were designed for military use, and Illinois residents can be assured the Protect Illinois Communities Act will help prevent these weapons of war from being used to cause devastation in our schools, places of worship and recreation spaces. The law is an important part of what must be a multifaceted approach to addressing gun violence, and I am pleased it remains in effect in Illinois."