The Supreme Court has declined to review challenges to AR-15 and high-capacity magazine bans in Maryland and Rhode Island, leaving state-level restrictions intact while conservative justices signal future intervention may be coming.
At a Glance
- The Supreme Court rejected appeals challenging Maryland’s AR-15 ban and Rhode Island’s high-capacity magazine restrictions
- Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch voted to hear the challenges, with Kavanaugh describing the lower court ruling as “questionable” but declining to provide the needed fourth vote
- The decision allows bans to remain in place in Maryland, Rhode Island, California, and several other Democrat-led states
- Justice Kavanaugh indicated the Court will likely address the AR-15 issue “in the next Term or two”
- The ruling continues the nationwide debate on whether popular semi-automatic rifles are protected under the Second Amendment
Court Leaves State Bans in Place While Signaling Future Review
In a significant decision for gun rights advocates, the Supreme Court has declined to hear challenges to Maryland’s ban on AR-15 style rifles and Rhode Island’s prohibition on high-capacity magazines. The rejections allow these restrictions to remain in effect, along with similar bans in California and several other states. The decision came despite three conservative justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch—voting to hear the cases, falling one vote short of the four needed to grant review. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, while criticizing the lower court’s reasoning, ultimately sided with the majority in denying the appeals.
Gun rights advocates had argued that AR-15 style rifles, owned by millions of Americans, are precisely the type of arms protected by the Second Amendment as they are “in common use by law-abiding citizens.” The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this argument when upholding Maryland’s ban, reasoning that military-style weapons fall outside constitutional protection. This decision came despite AR-15 style rifles being legal in 41 states, making Maryland’s ban what Justice Kavanaugh described as “somewhat of an outlier” in American gun regulation.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to review bans on assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines isn’t just another gun-rights story—it’s a reckoning over how far unelected agencies can push regulatory power. Maryland’s 2013 law and Rhode Island’s 2022 statute class assault weapons…
— Michael Infanzon (@infanzon) June 2, 2025
Justices Signal Future Reconsideration Likely
While declining to hear these cases now, several justices made clear they view the issue as unresolved. In his statement, Justice Kavanaugh wrote, “In my view, this court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two.” This suggests that while gun rights advocates lost this round, the Court’s conservative majority may be preparing to take up similar cases in the near future. The statement offers a glimmer of hope to Second Amendment supporters who view these state-level bans as unconstitutional restrictions on their rights.
“In short, under this Court’s precedents, the Fourth Circuit’s decision is questionable. Although the Court today denies certiorari, a denial of certiorari does not mean that the Court agrees with a lower-court decision or that the issue is not worthy of review”, said Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Justice Thomas, in his dissent, expressed stronger disagreement with the Court’s decision not to intervene. “I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America,” he wrote, highlighting the urgency he sees in resolving this constitutional question. Thomas criticized the 4th Circuit for placing what he viewed as an excessive burden on challengers to demonstrate their constitutional rights, arguing that the issue affects millions of law-abiding gun owners across the country.
The Ongoing Second Amendment Debate
The Court’s decision maintains the status quo in a deeply divided national landscape regarding AR-15 style rifles. Maryland enacted its ban following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012, with supporters arguing these weapons are “military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense,” as Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote in upholding the ban. This view stands in stark contrast to Judge Julius Richardson’s dissenting opinion that “Today, the AR-15 and its variants are one of the most popular and widely owned firearms in the Nation.”
“They are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense.”, said Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson.
The Supreme Court has previously expanded gun rights, striking down bans on private handgun possession in Washington D.C. and Chicago, as well as New York’s restrictions on concealed carry permits. However, the Court has been more cautious in addressing restrictions on specific types of firearms. With clear signals from multiple justices that they view this issue as unresolved, the debate over whether AR-15 style rifles enjoy Second Amendment protection appears far from settled, despite this temporary victory for gun control advocates.
