The Supreme Court lets lower court victories stand—for now.

With only a few exceptions, since 2008 the US Supreme Court has declined to grant review in over 150 Second Amendment cases. This includes numerous cases where lower courts upheld critical gun safety laws. Among the many cases in which the Court has denied review are gun lobby–backed lawsuits pushing for a dangerously unlimited interpretation of the Second Amendment—one that ignores the careful safeguards expressed in the Supreme Court’s landmark Second Amendment case, District of Columbia v. Heller.

By declining to review most lower court decisions that followed Heller and upheld federal, state, and local gun laws, the Supreme Court has reconfirmed that the Second Amendment is not an obstacle to gun safety. Although there are clues that some Supreme Court justices wish to revisit gun rights and disturb the constitutional status of laws regulating guns in public and military-style weapons, for now, the moderate approach has prevailed, allowing communities to pass lifesaving measures supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans.

RECENT ACTIVITY IN THE COURTS

In 2008, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Heller, and in 2010, the Court decided McDonald v. City of Chicago, which held that the right recognized in Heller extends to state and local governments. McDonald involved a Chicago law nearly identical to the one struck down in Heller and did not expand the substantive scope of the Second Amendment (except to find it applies to states and localities). The Supreme Court has weighed in on a Second Amendment case only two times since 2010. The first was in Caetano v. Massachusetts, involving a Massachusetts law that prohibits private possession of stun guns. In a short, unsigned opinion the Court did not break any new legal ground or rule that stun guns are protected by the Second Amendment.1 Instead, the Court’s decision in Caetano simply vacated and remanded the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s decision upholding the constitutionality of the state’s stun gun ban, and directed the state court to apply Heller. 

Second, in 2019, the Supreme Court heard a case brought by a state affiliate of the NRA called New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York (“NYSRPA”). However, the Court ended up not issuing a Second Amendment ruling in NYSRPA. Instead, by a 6–3 vote, the justices found that that the case was moot based on New York City’s repeal of the challenged handgun transport restrictions. Note, however, that four justices joined separate opinions suggesting that they might support issuing an expansive Second Amendment ruling in a future case. A few of these justices previously endorsed radical interpretations of the right to keep and bear arms as having few limits. The NYSRPA case showed that there are some members of the Supreme Court who would likely vote to overturn firearm regulations previously accepted as constitutional, although for now, a more moderate approach has prevailed.

IN THE COURTS

Time and again, gun safety laws have been proven constitutional. Our attorneys defend lifesaving gun laws and take on the gun lobby in courts around the country, all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Learn More

SUPREME COURT CERTIORARI DENIALS

Since the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in the Heller case, lower courts across the country have been inundated with costly and time-consuming challenges to state and local gun laws. However, following the Supreme Court’s guidance in Heller, the lower courts have consistently upheld these laws. These decisions have found that challenged gun safety measures are consistent with the sensible regulations the Supreme Court endorsed in Heller and have successfully protected people from gun violence while still allowing responsible gun use by law-abiding citizens. Since 2008, there have been over 1,400 Second Amendment cases that challenged gun laws, but in most cases the gun safety law or criminal conviction at issue has been upheld.

Many of these Second Amendment challenges to firearm laws make their way to the Supreme Court, in the form of a request that the justices review a lower court’s ruling upholding a gun safety law. This is called a request for Supreme Court certiorari. However, the Court has generally denied these requests and refused to hear these cases, with the exception of the NYSRPA case and others described above. By declining to hear most appeals, the Supreme Court has thus far protected lower court decisions upholding gun safety laws and helped keep these strong laws on the books. For example, the Supreme Court has refused to hear cases that:

These are only some examples of the Supreme Court’s action on gun laws nationwide. The Court has also declined to review numerous other cases upholding federal, state, and local laws and policies restricting dangerous uses of firearms, including laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of children and laws intended to reduce gun trafficking.9 As a result, the numerous federal and state court decisions upholding these and other gun safety measures have been left undisturbed, keeping lifesaving laws in place in communities across America.

WHAT’S NEXT AT THE COURTS

Despite the current consensus in favor of firearm regulation, gun safety advocates cannot take our eyes off the Supreme Court just yet. The NRA continues to advance its deadly interpretation of the Constitution before the justices of the Supreme Court and in lower courts across the country, demanding that the right to bear arms be treated like a “super-right” that trumps all other constitutional protections. With President Trump’s appointment of NRA-backed justices who support this destructive vision of the Constitution, it is possible the Supreme Court could decide to weigh in on a Second Amendment case in the near future. This is an outcome four justices have already expressed support for, aligning themselves with a view of the Second Amendment that is skeptical of or even hostile to gun violence prevention legislation. This means gun safety supporters must keep fighting to defend our progress—so we’ll be ready when the next case reaches the Supreme Court.

RELATED

  1. See Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027 (2016) (per curiam).[↩]
  2. Rogers v. Grewal, No. 3:18-cv-01544, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84443 (D.N.J. May 21, 2018), aff’d, No. 18-2366 (3d Cir. 2018), cert denied, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3248 (Jun. 15, 2020); Gould v. Morgan, 907 F.3d 659, 672-73 (1st Cir. 2018), cert denied by Gould v. Lipson, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3151 (June 15, 2020); Malpasso v. Pallozzi, 767 F. App’x 525, 525 (4th Cir. 2019), cert denied, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3162 (June 15, 2020); In re Permit to Carry a Handgun of Cheeseman, No. A-2412-17T2, 2018 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2471 (N.J. App. Div. Nov. 8, 2018) (unpublished), cert denied by Cheeseman v. Polillo, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3174 (June 15, 2020); In re Douglas F. Ciolek’s Application, 2019 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 257 (N.J. App. Div., Feb. 1, 2019) (unpublished), cert denied by Ciolek v. New Jersey, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3236 (June 15, 2020); Culp v. Raoul, 921 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2019), cert denied, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3195 (June 15, 2020); Norman v. State of Florida, 215 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 2017), cert denied 2017 U.S. LEXIS 6976 (Nov. 27, 2017); Peruta v. Cnty. of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2016), cert denied by Peruta v. California, 137 S. Ct. 1995 (2017); Berron v. Ill. Concealed Carry Licensing Review Bd., 825 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2016), cert denied 137 S. Ct. 843 (2017); Drake v. Filko, 724 F.3d 426 (3d Cir. 2013), cert denied 134 S. Ct. 2134 (2014); Kachalsky v. Cacace, 701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012), cert denied 133 S. Ct. 1806 (2013); Brown v. United States, 979 A.2d 630 (D.C. 2009), cert denied 2010 U.S. LEXIS 9811 (Dec. 13, 2010); People v. Dawson, 403 Ill. App. 3d 499 (2010), cert denied 2011 U.S. LEXIS 3381 (May 2, 2011); Commonwealth v. Powell, 459 Mass. 572 (Mass. 2011), cert denied 2012 U.S. LEXIS 2231 (Mar. 19, 2012) (the court also rejected a Second Amendment challenge to a law requiring the registration of all firearms); Williams v. State of Maryland, 10 A.3d 1167, 1178 (Md. 2011), cert denied 132 S.Ct. 93 (2011).[↩]
  3. Medina v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 152 (D.C. Cir. 2019), cert deniedby Medina v. Barr, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 7450 (Dec. 9, 2019); United States v. Hughley, 691 Fed. Appx. 278 (8th Cir. 2017), cert denied 2018 U.S. LEXIS 1285 (Feb. 20, 2018); Hamilton v. Pallozzi, 848 F.3d 614 (4th Cir. 2017), cert denied 2017 U.S. LEXIS 7187 (Dec. 4, 2017); United States v. Massey, 849 F.3d 262 (5th Cir. 2017), cert denied 2017 U.S. LEXIS 7177 (Dec. 4, 2017); United States v. Torres-Rosario, 658 F.3d 110 (1st Cir. 2011), cert denied 2012 U.S. LEXIS 2204 (Mar. 19, 2012); United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2010), cert denied 131 S. Ct. 158 (2010); United States v. Moore, 326 Fed. Appx. 794 (5th Cir. 2009), cert denied 2009 U.S. LEXIS 6669 (2009); Triplett v. Roy, 326 Fed. Appx. 720 (5th Cir. 2009), cert denied 2009 U.S. LEXIS 6345 (Oct. 5, 2009); United States v. Anderson, 559 F.3d 348 (5th Cir. 2009), cert denied 129 S. Ct. 2814 (2009); United States v. Whisnant, 391 Fed. Appx. 426 (6th Cir. 2010), cert denied 131 S. Ct. 586 (2010); United States v. Khami, 362 Fed. Appx. 501 (6th Cir. 2010), cert denied 130 S. Ct. 3345 (2010); United States v. Hamer, 319 Fed. Appx. 366 (6th Cir. 2009), cert denied 2009 U.S. LEXIS 6742 (Oct. 5, 2009); United States v. Frazier, 314 Fed. Appx. 801 (6th Cir. 2008), cert denied 129 S. Ct. 1652 (2009); United States v. Williams, 616 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2010), cert denied 178 L. Ed. 2d 532 (2010); United States v. Brown, 436 Fed. Appx. 725 (8th Cir. 2011), cert denied 182 L. Ed. 2d 263 (2012); United States v. Duckett, 406 Fed. Appx. 185 (9th Cir. 2010), cert denied 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4849 (June 27, 2011); United States v. Schwindt, 378 Fed. Appx. 721 (9th Cir. 2010), cert denied 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7256 (Oct. 4, 2010); United States v. Parker, 371 Fed. Appx. 749 (9th Cir. 2010), cert denied 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8319 (Oct. 18, 2010); United States v. Vongxay, 594 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2010), cert denied 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7235 (Oct. 4, 2010); United States v. Gieswein, 346 Fed. Appx. 293 (10th Cir. 2009), cert denied 2010 U.S. LEXIS 1462 (Feb. 22, 2010); United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037 (10th Cir. 2009), cert denied 2010 U.S. LEXIS 2009 (Mar. 1, 2010); United States v. Nicoll, 400 Fed. Appx. 468 (11th Cir. 2010), cert denied 179 L. Ed. 2d 354 (2011); United States v. Feaster, 394 Fed. Appx. 561 (11th Cir. 2010), cert denied 178 L. Ed. 2d 796 (2011) (the court also rejected a Second Amendment challenge to a sentence enhancement for possessing a firearm during a drug trafficking crime); United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 768 (11th Cir. 2010), cert denied 177 L. Ed. 2d 313 (2010); State v. Whitaker, 201 N.C. App. 190 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009), cert denied 130 S. Ct. 3428 (2010). [↩]
  4. Fortson v. L.A. City Attorney’s Office, 852 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2017), cert denied 199 L. Ed. 2d 48 (2017); United States v. Elkins, 495 Fed. Appx. 330 (4th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (unpublished), cert denied by 133 S. Ct. 894 (2013); United States v. Reese, 627 F.3d 792 (10th Cir. 2010), cert denied 131 S.Ct. 2476, 179 LEd. 1214, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 3768 (U.S., May 16, 2011) (rejecting Second Amendment challenge to prohibition on the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders); In re M.M., 2010 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 749 (N.J. Sup. Ct. App. Div. 2010), cert denied 2011 U.S. LEXIS 1502 (Feb. 22, 2011) (rejecting Second Amendment challenge to state law authorizing forfeiture of firearms when an officer has probable cause to believe that an act of domestic violence has been committed). [↩]
  5. Binderup v. Att’y Gen., 836 F.3d 336 (3d Cir. 2016) (en banc), conditional cross-petition for certiorari filed, No, 16-983, cert denied by Binderup v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 2323 (2017); Enos v. Holder, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 4416 (2015); Booker v. United States, 644 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2011), cert denied 2012 U.S. LEXIS 1581 (2012); United States v. Staten, 666 F.3d 154 (4th Cir. 2011), cert denied 2012 U.S. LEXIS 2735 (2012); United States v. Donovan, 410 Fed. Appx. 979 (7th Cir. 2010), cert denied 180 L. Ed. 2d 859 (2011); United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010), cert denied 2011 U.S. LEXIS 2138 (Mar. 21, 2011); People v. DeLacy, 192 Cal. App. 4th 1481 (2011), cert denied 132 S. Ct. 1092 (2012); Chein v. S.C., 2011 Cal. LEXIS 3357 (2011) (denying review of order issued in People v. Chein, No. 0AH04080 (order dated 12/17/10) (unpublished), cert denied 2011 U.S. LEXIS 8494 (Nov. 28, 2011). [↩]
  6. Worman v. Healey, 922 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2019), cert denied, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3159 (June 15, 2020); Wilson v. Cook Cty., 937 F.3d 1028, (7th Cir. 2019), cert denied, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3197 (June 15, 2020); United States v. Cox, 906 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 3931 (June 10, 2019); Commonwealth v. Cassidy, 479 Mass. 527, 528 (2018) (Mass. 2018), cert. denied 2018 U.S. LEXIS 5182 (U.S., Oct. 1, 2018); Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017) (en banc), cert denied 2017 U.S. LEXIS 7002 (Nov. 27, 2017); Viriyapanthu v. Brandon, 686 Fed. Appx. 390 (9th Cir. Mar. 31, 2017), cert denied 2017 U.S. LEXIS 5931 (Oct. 2, 2017); New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2015), cert denied 2016 U.S. LEXIS 3959 (2016); Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2015), cert denied 136 S. Ct. 447 (2015); Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014), cert denied 135 S. Ct. 2799 (2015); United States v. Zaleski, 489 Fed. Appx. 474 (2d Cir. 2012), cert denied 133 S.Ct. 554 (2012); Hamblen v. UnitedStates, 591 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2009), cert denied 2010 U.S. LEXIS 3811 (May 3, 2010) (the court also rejected a challenge to a federal law prohibiting the possession of unregistered types of firearms); United States v. Fincher, 538 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2008), cert denied 2009 U.S. LEXIS 1585 (Feb. 23, 2009); United States v. McCartney, 357 Fed. Appx. 73 (9th Cir. 2009), cert denied 130 S. Ct. 1919 (2010) (the court also rejected a challenge to a federal law prohibiting the possession of unregistered types of firearms); People v. James, 174 Cal. App. 4th 662 (2009), cert denied 2010 U.S. LEXIS 1284 (Feb. 22, 2010). [↩]
  7. Justice v. Town of Cicero, 577 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2009), cert denied, 130 S.Ct. 3410 (2010); Silvester v. Harris, 843 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, Silvester v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 945 (2018); Kwong v. Bloomberg, 723 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2013), cert denied, Kwong v. De Blasio, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 3857 (2014); Bauer v. Becerra, 858 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 1307 (Feb. 20, 2018).[↩]
  8. Bonidy v. United States Postal Serv., 790 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir. 2015), cert denied 2016 U.S. LEXIS 2105 (2016); United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2011), cert denied 2011 U.S. LEXIS 8647 (Nov. 28, 2011); United States v. Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874 (5th Cir. 2009), cert denied 176 L. Ed. 2d 198 (2010); Embody v. Ward, 695 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2012), cert denied 133 S.Ct. 770 (2012) (rejecting Second Amendment challenge to park ranger’s action in detaining and disarming park visitor); Nordyke v. King, 681 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2012), cert denied 133 S.Ct. 840 (2013) (rejecting Second Amendment challenge to county ordinance making possession of a firearm on county property a misdemeanor where county allowed gun shows and sales under an exception for “events” provided the firearms at the events were secured to prevent unauthorized use). [↩]
  9. For example, the Court has rejected cases challenging the federal sentence enhancements for using firearms in crime. See United States v. Kearns, 429 Fed. Appx. 350 (4th Cir. 2011), cert denied 181 L. Ed. 2d 226 (2011); United States v. Hudson, 422 Fed. Appx. 343 (5th Cir. 2011), cert denied 2011 U.S. LEXIS 8130 (Nov. 14, 2011); United States v. Spaulding, 366 Fed. Appx. 670 (7th Cir. 2010), cert denied 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6517 (Oct. 4, 2010); United States v. King, 333 Fed. Appx. 92 (7th Cir. 2009), cert denied 130 S. Ct. 430 (2009); United States v. Jackson, 555 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2009), cert denied 130 S. Ct. 147 (2009); United States v. Seay, 620 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2010), cert denied 2011 U.S. LEXIS 613 (Jan. 18, 2011); United States v. Potter, 630 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 2011), cert denied 2011 U.S. LEXIS 6117 (Oct. 3, 2011); United States v. Angelos, 417 Fed. Appx. 786 (10th Cir. 2011), cert denied 2011 U.S. LEXIS 7042 (Oct. 3, 2011); Paige v. United States, 25 A.3d 74 (D.C. 2011), cert denied 132 S. Ct. 1605 (2012) (the court also rejected a Second Amendment challenge to a law requiring a license to carry a pistol); People v. Coleman, 2011 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 220 (2011), cert denied 2012 U.S. LEXIS 2548 (Apr. 2, 2012); Michigan v. Gerell, 2009 Mich. App. LEXIS 1152 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010), cert deniedCharles v. Michigan, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 563 (Jan. 19, 2010). The Court has also declined to review numerous other cases upholding firearms related laws, regulations, and practices. See Pena v. Lindley, 898 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2018), cert denied, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3180 (Jun. 15, 2020) (rejecting Second Amendment challenge to California law requiring that design safety features and microstamping technology be included new handgun models); Mance v. Sessions, 896 F.3d 699 (5th Cir. 2018), cert denied, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3179 (Jun. 15, 2020) (rejecting Second Amendment challenge to federal law requiring out-of-state handgun purchases to be processed by an in-state dealer); Teixeira v. Cty. of Alameda, 873 F.3d 670 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc), cert. denied, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 2952 (U.S., May 14, 2018) (rejecting Second Amendment challenge to municipal zoning law barring gun dealers from operating in sensitive locations); Mahoney v. Sessions, 871 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 2170 (U.S., Apr. 2, 2018) (rejecting Second Amendment challenge to a law enforcement department policy regarding the use of lethal force); Wilson v Lynch, 835 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2016), cert denied by Wilson v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1396 (2017) (rejecting Second Amendment challenge to the federal law prohibiting sale of firearms to anyone who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance”); United States v. Dancy, 640 F.3d 455 (1st Cir. 2011), cert denied 2011 U.S. LEXIS 8072 (Nov. 7, 2011) (rejecting Second Amendment challenge to interpretation of federal gun laws which construed the term “firearm” to include inoperable guns); United States v. Rene E., 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009), cert denied 175 L. Ed. 2d 921 (2010) (rejecting Second Amendment challenge to law prohibiting juvenile possession of a handgun); US v. Decastro, 682 F.3d 160 (2d. Cir. 2012), cert denied 133 S.Ct. 838 (2013) (rejecting Second Amendment challenge to prohibition on transporting firearms across state lines); United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010), cert denied 131 S. Ct. 958 (2011) (rejecting Second Amendment challenge to prohibition on possession of firearms with obliterated serial numbers); United States v. Portillo-Munoz, 643 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2011), cert denied 2012 U.S. LEXIS 3243 (Apr. 23, 2012) (rejecting challenge to statute prohibiting firearm possession by undocumented persons); United States v. Castro, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 26000 (9th Cir. 2011), cert denied 132 S. Ct. 1816 (2012) (rejecting Second Amendment challenge to conviction for conspiracy to deal firearms without a license in violation of federal law); United States v. Gilbert, 286 Fed. Appx. 383 (9th Cir. 2008), cert denied 2008 U.S. LEXIS 8460 (Nov. 17, 2008) (rejecting Second Amendment challenge to district court’s refusal in a criminal case to instruct the jury that the Second Amendment afforded an individual right to possess firearms for personal use and allow the defendant to testify as to his understanding and beliefs concerning the Second Amendment); Farmer v. State, 235 P.3d 1012 (Alaska 2010), cert denied 2011 U.S. LEXIS 2711 (Apr. 4, 2011) (rejecting Second Amendment challenge to state’s refusal to expunge a felony conviction); Warmus v. Ohio, 197 Ohio App.3d 383 (2011), cert denied 133 S. Ct. 335 (2012) (rejecting Second Amendment challenge to law placing the burden of proof on the defendant to establish self-defense in criminal case). [↩]