U.S. Supreme Court won’t hear challenge to Illinois’ assault weapons
ban, for now
Send a link to a friend
[July 03, 2024]
By PETER HANCOCK
Capitol News Illinois
phancock@capitolnewsillinois.com
SPRINGFIELD – The U.S. Supreme Court announced Tuesday it will not
immediately review Illinois’ assault weapons ban, leaving the law in
place at least until challenges to the law have been fully heard in
lower courts.
The announcement came just two days before the two-year anniversary of a
mass shooting at an Independence Day parade in Highland Park that left
seven people dead and dozens more injured or traumatized.
That shooting served as the impetus for state lawmakers to pass the
Protect Illinois Communities Act, which bans the sale and possession of
a long list of semi-automatic rifles and handguns as well as various
kinds of attachments and large-capacity magazines.
“I applaud the U.S. Supreme Court for allowing Illinois’ common-sense
gun reform to continue,” state Rep. Bob Morgan, D-Deerfield, the law’s
chief sponsor in the House, said in a statement. “Every day that assault
weapons and high capacity magazines are banned in Illinois represents
fewer gun deaths and reduced gun violence.”
The court’s announcement came in a batch of orders issued Tuesday
morning, one day after the court released the final opinions from its
2023-2024 session. Most of the orders dealt with petitions for cases to
be heard when the court’s next session begins in October.
Usually, the court issues only a one-sentence order either granting or
denying a petition to review a case, known as a writ of certiorari.
Occasionally, though, one or more of the justices will attach a
statement explaining their reason for the decision.
Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the court’s most conservative justices,
issued such a statement, noting the court is often “wary” about taking
up “interlocutory” appeals – that is, appeals of decisions made during
the course of a proceeding, before a final verdict is reached.
“These cases arise from a preliminary injunction, and the Seventh
Circuit stressed that its merits analysis was merely ‘a preliminary look
at the subject,’” Thomas wrote, referring to a November decision by the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. “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 judgement.”
State lawmakers passed the ban during a lame duck session in January
2023. Gov. JB Pritzker signed it into law just hours after its final
passage in the House, making Illinois the ninth state at that time,
along with Washington, D.C., to enact such a ban. The state of
Washington passed a similar law a few months later.
The legal challenges to Illinois’ law moved swiftly through federal
courts, putting those cases in a position to be taken up by the Supreme
Court ahead of challenges in some other states.
In April, a judge in the Southern District of Illinois granted a
preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the law while it was
being challenged, saying it would likely be found unconstitutional. But
in separate cases in the Northern District of Illinois, two other judges
came to the opposite conclusion and declined to grant injunctions.
Those cases were eventually consolidated in an appeal to the Seventh
Circuit, which lifted the Southern District injunction and allowed the
law to remain pending a final resolution.
But the movement in Illinois and other states to ban the types of
weapons used in numerous mass shootings came around the same time the
new conservative majority on the Supreme Court was developing new legal
standards for judging gun control measures.
In 2008, the court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the
Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess ordinary
types of weapons that are commonly used for lawful purposes. But it also
noted there is a “historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of
dangerous and unusual weapons.”
[to top of second column]
|
![](../images/070324PIX/news_a1.jpg)
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to Illinois’
assault weapons ban on Tuesday, but Justice Clarence Thomas said in
a separate statement he is hopeful the high court will hear the case
once lower courts have rendered final decisions – and he is
skeptical that it will withstand constitutional scrutiny.
(Highlights added to an excerpt of Thomas’ statement)
Then in June 2022, less than two weeks before the Highland Park mass
shooting, the court ruled in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association
v. Bruen that to justify restrictions on someone’s right to keep and
bear arms, the government must demonstrate the regulations are
“consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm
regulation.”
That opinion, written by Thomas, has been criticized as unworkable
because of its reliance on practices that were in place at the time of
the Constitution’s founding, long before the invention of many weapons
in use today.
In his statement Tuesday, Thomas acknowledged that the court so far has
provided little guidance about which weapons are protected by the Second
Amendment and which ones are not. But he also accused the Seventh
Circuit of being “nonsensical” in concluding that the weapons banned
under the Illinois law were “militaristic” in nature and therefore not
protected by the Second Amendment.
“The Seventh Circuit’s contrived ‘non-militaristic’ limitation on the
Arms protected by the Second Amendment seems unmoored from both text and
history,” he wrote.
Hannah Hill, executive director of the National Association for Gun
Rights, a lead plaintiff in one of the Illinois cases and in cases in
other states, said she was confident the bans will eventually be
overturned.
“This is not a loss, it's simply a procedural setback,” she said. “And
we have every confidence that the Supreme Court is going to strike down
an assault weapons ban, as soon as the right vehicle gets brought to
them.”
But Yolanda Androzzo, executive director of One Aim Illinois, a leading
gun control advocacy group, said in a separate interview that the battle
is far from over.
“The decision indicates that the battle over this legislation will
continue in lower courts,” she said. “One Aim Illinois remains committed
to supporting this legislation and will continue to advocate for its
upholding in district courts.”
A spokesman for Pritzker, meanwhile, defended the law, saying in a
statement that it makes Illinois a safer place.
“Despite those who value weapons of war more than the safety of their
constituents, this law remains in effect and will continue to protect
Illinoisans from the constant fear of being gunned down in a place of
worship, at a parade, or on a street corner,” spokesperson Alex Gough
said.
Attorney General Kwame Raoul said in a statement his office would
continue to defend the law’s constitutionality when the cases are
returned to lower courts.
“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,” he said. “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.”
Capitol News Illinois is
a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service covering state government. It is
distributed to hundreds of newspapers, radio and TV stations statewide.
It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert
R. McCormick Foundation, along with major contributions from the
Illinois Broadcasters Foundation and Southern Illinois Editorial
Association. |