The Justice Department filed a lawsuit this week against the city of Denver, challenging its decades-old ban on semiautomatic rifles, and a top DOJ official predicted the Supreme Court will eventually strike down such restrictions nationwide.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon told Just the News that the legal groundwork has already been laid by recent high court opinions, and that a definitive ruling protecting AR-15 ownership for law-abiding Americans is only a matter of time.

The lawsuit targets Denver's ordinance, first enacted in 1989, which prohibits certain semiautomatic firearms with high-capacity magazines. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche framed the challenge as a direct defense of the Second Amendment, as Newsmax reported.

"The Constitution is not a suggestion, and the Second Amendment is not a second-class right. Denver's ban on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles directly violates the right to bear arms."

That was Blanche on Tuesday, laying down the administration's marker. The complaint, filed by the DOJ's newly established Second Amendment Section, argues that Denver's ordinance violates the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. It also criticizes the term "assault weapon" as politically charged language promoted by anti-gun activists.

Dhillon predicts nationwide AR-15 legalization

Dhillon went further than the lawsuit itself. In her interview, she described a legal trajectory she considers all but certain.

"The court has really signaled in several opinions where it is going with this. I think there is going to be a ruling eventually from the Supreme Court that AR-15s are legal for all law-abiding citizens to own and operate."

Her reasoning rests on the Supreme Court's own language. Dhillon pointed to high court opinions describing the AR-15 as the nation's most commonly owned rifle, a classification that, under existing Second Amendment doctrine, carries significant legal weight.

"That leads to the inexorable conclusion that the AR-15 is presumptively legal all over America."

And Dhillon made clear the DOJ intends to push the issue to its conclusion. "We intend to make sure they do that," she said.

The Trump administration has made Second Amendment enforcement a visible priority. Dhillon credited both President Trump and former Attorney General Pam Bondi for establishing the DOJ's Second Amendment Section, which is now spearheading cases like the Denver challenge. The administration has shown a similar willingness to press constitutional arguments in other areas headed toward the high court, including ICE mandatory detention policy now on track for Supreme Court review.

"I want to thank the president for setting the tone at the beginning of his administration."

Denver digs in

Denver's Mayor Mike Johnston responded with defiance. CBS News reported his comments, which left little room for compromise.

"We're here today to let them know that our answer is 'H*** no.'"

Johnston argued the restrictions are necessary to reduce gun violence and declared the city would continue enforcing the ordinance. That puts Denver on a direct collision course with the federal government, and potentially with the Supreme Court itself.

The city's ordinance has been on the books for more than three decades, predating most of the modern Second Amendment jurisprudence that Dhillon cited. Denver officials show no sign of voluntarily retreating. But the DOJ's complaint reframes the debate: the question is no longer whether local leaders want to keep these bans. The question is whether the Constitution permits them to.

Legal analysts referenced in reporting on the case say the Denver lawsuit could eventually create a federal circuit split, the kind of conflict between appellate courts that often prompts the Supreme Court to step in. That pattern has played out across multiple policy areas in recent years. The Trump administration has faced similar circuit-level resistance on asylum restrictions, with cases repeatedly escalating toward the high court.

A broader Second Amendment strategy

The Denver lawsuit does not exist in isolation. It fits into a deliberate DOJ strategy under the current administration: identify local and state firearms restrictions that conflict with recent Supreme Court precedent, challenge them in federal court, and build the record that forces the justices to rule definitively.

The Colorado State Shooting Association praised the DOJ's intervention. The group said it had recently met with Blanche to discuss Colorado gun restrictions, signaling ongoing coordination between gun rights organizations and federal officials.

For years, cities and states that wanted to restrict semiautomatic rifles operated in a legal gray zone. The Supreme Court's landmark rulings expanded the scope of Second Amendment protections but left specific questions, including the legality of AR-15 bans, unresolved. Dhillon's public prediction amounts to a signal: the DOJ believes the remaining ambiguity is temporary.

That confidence tracks with the administration's posture in other constitutional disputes. When the Supreme Court struck down certain tariff measures, the White House launched new investigations to replace the levies rather than accept the setback. The pattern is consistent: press forward, use every available legal mechanism, and force the courts to draw clear lines.

What comes next

Several open questions remain. The DOJ has not disclosed which federal court received the Denver complaint, and no case number has been made public. The specific provisions of Denver's ordinance being challenged have not been detailed beyond the broad description of a ban on certain semiautomatic rifles including AR-15-style firearms.

Denver will presumably mount a vigorous defense. Johnston's rhetoric suggests the city views the fight as existential, not just a legal dispute but a political one. And progressive cities across the country will be watching closely. A federal ruling against Denver's ban could threaten similar ordinances in dozens of jurisdictions.

The Supreme Court's own docket is already crowded with consequential cases touching on executive authority, constitutional rights, and the limits of government power. Recent terms have included battles over everything from birthright citizenship to redistricting under the Voting Rights Act. Adding a definitive AR-15 case to that list would mark one of the most significant Second Amendment decisions in a generation.

But Dhillon's prediction is not a guarantee. The path from a district court filing to a Supreme Court ruling is long, unpredictable, and littered with procedural obstacles. Circuit courts may rule in conflicting ways. The justices may decline to take the case, or may take it and rule narrowly. The DOJ's confidence is notable, but confidence is not the same as a court order.

What is clear is the direction of travel. The federal government is no longer content to let cities like Denver treat the Second Amendment as optional. The DOJ has the resources, the legal theory, and the political will to force the issue. Whether the Supreme Court agrees, and how broadly it rules, will determine whether AR-15 bans survive anywhere in America.

For thirty-six years, Denver told law-abiding gun owners the Constitution didn't apply inside city limits. The Justice Department just told Denver that era is ending, and the Supreme Court may soon make it official.