The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled 2-1 on Thursday to uphold Illinois' ban on AR-15-style rifles and large-capacity magazines, reversing a lower court that had struck the law down as unconstitutional. The decision lands just weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to take up the same core question: whether state and local bans on commonly owned semiautomatic firearms violate the Second Amendment.

The split ruling is a blow to gun-rights advocates who had won at the district court level in 2024, when U.S. District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn found that Illinois' Protect Illinois Communities Act likely violated the Second Amendment under the framework the Supreme Court established in its landmark 2022 Bruen decision. The Seventh Circuit majority reversed McGlynn, holding that the banned firearms fall outside Second Amendment protection because they are designed for "military-style offensive use" rather than self-defense, as Just The News reported.

Chief Judge Michael Brennan, a Trump appointee, dissented sharply, and his reasoning may matter more than the majority opinion if the case reaches the nation's highest court.

The dissent's challenge to the majority

Brennan's dissent went straight at the majority's core logic. As the Associated Press reported, the chief judge wrote:

"Because the people have overwhelmingly chosen the AR-15 rifle and its magazine as their weapon of choice, they are protected by the Second Amendment."

That argument tracks the reasoning the Supreme Court used in Bruen and earlier in Heller: firearms in common civilian use for lawful purposes enjoy constitutional protection. The AR-15 is the best-selling rifle platform in the United States, a fact gun-rights organizations have pressed in courtrooms across the country.

Brennan also argued that "the majority departed from the Supreme Court's recent Second Amendment precedents" and that Illinois "failed to identify historical analogues sufficient to justify such a broad prohibition." Under the Bruen framework, governments defending gun regulations must show they are consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation, not simply that the regulations serve a compelling interest. The majority said the tradition supports bans like Illinois'; Brennan said it does not.

The panel that heard the case consisted of Judge Frank Easterbrook, a Reagan appointee; Judge Amy St. Eve, a George W. Bush appointee; and Brennan. Two of three judges were appointed by Republican presidents, yet the majority still sided with Illinois, as the Washington Examiner detailed in its earlier coverage of oral arguments in the case, Barnett v. Raoul.

Trump DOJ weighed in, and lost

The case drew unusual attention from the Trump administration. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon personally argued before the Seventh Circuit on behalf of the private litigants challenging the ban, a rare step for a political appointee. Dhillon told the court that "firearms in common civilian use are clearly protected, and courts cannot sidestep that by calling them dangerous or unusual."

She also pushed back on the majority's approach to historical analysis. "Facts matter in law, of course. But under Bruen, history, not balancing tests or policy determinations, guides constitutional analysis," Dhillon argued. The NRA backed the challenge as well.

Despite the administration's direct involvement, the two-judge majority was unmoved. That result underscores the limits of executive branch advocacy when appellate judges reach different conclusions about what the Supreme Court's own precedents require. Courts across the country have split on the question, with some striking down similar bans and others upholding them, a textbook scenario for Supreme Court review.

In Virginia, for instance, a judge blocked an AR-15 ban days before it took effect after a legal challenge by Gun Owners of America, illustrating how differently courts are reading the same constitutional text.

What the Illinois law actually does

The Protect Illinois Communities Act bans the manufacture, sale, delivery, purchase, and possession of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. Fox News reported that the law includes a grandfather clause for preexisting lawful owners, and it defines large-capacity magazines as those holding more than 10 rounds for long guns and more than 15 rounds for handguns.

Illinois passed the law after the 2022 Highland Park Fourth of July parade mass shooting. Governor JB Pritzker signed it into law, and on Thursday he called the Seventh Circuit's ruling "a victory in the fight to end gun violence" in a social media post.

The Cook County State's Attorney's Office issued a lengthier statement vowing to defend the county's own assault weapons ban before the Supreme Court:

"We will not back down from defending Cook County's long-standing ban on assault weapons. These weapons of war are designed to inflict the maximum amount of carnage and destruction and have no place in our communities. Countless victims have already endured the devastating impact of gun violence. We will defend this lawful ordinance before this nation's highest court to continue protecting the people of Cook County."

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul struck a similar tone, stating, "We have seen the damage that assault weapons and large-capacity magazines can inflict, and these weapons of war have no place in our communities."

The Supreme Court looms

The Seventh Circuit's ruling does not end the legal fight. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a plaintiff in the case, has already announced plans to petition the Supreme Court, as Newsmax reported. And the justices have already signaled they are ready to address the question head-on.

Late last month, the Supreme Court announced it would take up appeals asking it to strike down bans on AR-15s and similar semiautomatic firearms in the Chicago area and in Connecticut. Those cases are expected to be heard in the fall. The court will consider directly whether such bans violate the Second Amendment, the question lower courts have answered in contradictory ways.

The high court's 2022 decision expanding Second Amendment rights reshaped the legal landscape for firearms regulation, requiring courts to apply a historical-tradition test rather than the interest-balancing frameworks many circuits had previously used. That shift has produced a patchwork of results. ABC7 Chicago noted that roughly a dozen states and major cities including New York, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C., have similar assault weapons laws on the books. A national assault weapons ban expired in 2004 after Congress declined to renew it. Democrats have supported bringing it back.

The Supreme Court's willingness to take up the issue suggests at least four justices believe the lower courts need guidance, or correction. The court has struck down concealed carry restrictions and other firearms regulations in recent terms, and gun-rights organizations are betting the justices will apply the same logic to semiautomatic rifle bans.

A pattern of conflicting rulings

The Seventh Circuit's decision fits a broader pattern of federal courts reaching opposite conclusions on the same constitutional question. In Illinois, a district judge said the ban was unconstitutional; the appeals court reversed. In Virginia, prosecutors have openly defied a Democratic governor's semiautomatic firearms ban on constitutional grounds. A Florida appeals court struck down a concealed carry ban on 18-to-20-year-olds as unconstitutional.

When federal circuits split this sharply, the Supreme Court typically steps in. And the justices have already placed the question on their calendar.

For the millions of Americans who lawfully own AR-15-style rifles, and for the dozen-plus states trying to ban them, the Seventh Circuit's ruling is a waypoint, not a destination. The real decision is months away.

What's at stake

The "weapons of war" language favored by Governor Pritzker, the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, and Attorney General Raoul is a policy argument dressed up as a legal one. The constitutional question is narrower and harder to dodge: Are firearms owned by millions of Americans for lawful purposes protected by the Second Amendment, or can legislatures declare them outside its reach by calling them military weapons?

Chief Judge Brennan's dissent frames the issue the way the Supreme Court framed it in Bruen: common civilian use matters, and historical tradition, not legislative preference, sets the boundary. The Seventh Circuit majority disagreed. Now the justices who wrote Bruen will have their say.

If the Second Amendment protects only the firearms that politicians are comfortable with, it doesn't protect much at all.