On June 2, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear appeals challenging state bans on assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines, effectively leaving the laws in Maryland and Rhode Island intact. This decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing national debate over gun control and the scope of the Second Amendment.
The Court’s refusal to take up these cases allows Maryland’s 2013 ban on semi-automatic rifles, including AR-15s and AK-47s, and Rhode Island’s 2022 prohibition on magazines holding more than ten rounds to remain in effect. Both laws were enacted in response to mass shootings and have been upheld by lower courts. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Maryland’s law, stating that such weapons are “military-style” and “excessively dangerous,” thus not protected by the Second Amendment. Similarly, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Rhode Island’s law, emphasizing that large-capacity magazines are not typically used for self-defense and therefore do not warrant constitutional protection.
The Supreme Court’s decision was not unanimous. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented, expressing concern that the Court’s inaction allows lower courts to undermine Second Amendment rights. Justice Thomas criticized the lower courts for “distorting” the Court’s precedents, particularly the 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which emphasized that firearm regulations must align with the nation’s historical tradition.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, while not dissenting, wrote separately to express skepticism about the lower courts’ reasoning. He described the 4th Circuit’s ruling as “questionable” and suggested that the Supreme Court should address the constitutionality of assault weapons bans in the near future. Kavanaugh’s statement indicates that the Court may revisit this issue as similar cases progress through the judicial system.
Gun rights advocates argue that the banned firearms and magazines are commonly used for lawful purposes, including self-defense, and thus should be protected under the Second Amendment. They contend that the term “assault weapon” is a political label that mischaracterizes semi-automatic firearms. Opponents of the bans also argue that such restrictions infringe upon individual rights and fail to effectively address gun violence.
Conversely, supporters of the bans, including state officials and gun control advocates, argue that these measures are necessary to enhance public safety and reduce the lethality of mass shootings. They point to data indicating that high-capacity magazines and assault-style weapons have been used in numerous mass shootings, resulting in higher casualty rates. Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha praised the Supreme Court’s decision, stating that it allows the state to continue enforcing “common sense gun laws” aimed at protecting residents.
The Supreme Court’s decision to decline these cases leaves in place a patchwork of state laws regarding assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. While some states have implemented strict regulations, others have more permissive laws, leading to ongoing legal and political debates. The Court’s action suggests a reluctance to further expand Second Amendment protections at this time, but the separate opinions by conservative justices indicate that the issue remains contentious and may return to the Court in the future.
This development comes amid a broader national conversation about gun control, public safety, and constitutional rights. As mass shootings continue to occur, lawmakers, courts, and citizens grapple with finding a balance between individual freedoms and collective security. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the complexity of this issue and the challenges inherent in interpreting the Constitution in the context of modern firearm technology and societal concerns.
