Recent Decisions

The Everytown Center for the Defense of Gun Safety tracks Second Amendment cases in courts across the country. This page provides brief summaries of recent decisions in selected cases, along with links to the decisions. New decisions are added approximately every two weeks. Sign up here to receive these updates by email. Earlier decisions are available here. Please get in touch with any questions you might have about these cases, or any other issues you may confront in defending gun safety laws against Second Amendment challenges.

Updates from September 21, 2026

Restricted Weapons and Accessories

1. Recchia v. Campbell, 183 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2026): First Circuit rejects facial challenge to Massachusetts law prohibiting assault weapons at history step under post-Bruen circuit precedent, concluding that Wolford and Hemani did not “upset[] the analytical framework”; also rejects dormant Commerce Clause and equal protection challenges 
2. Ass’n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Att’y Gen. N.J., 183 F.4th 211 (3d Cir. 2026) (en banc), mandate stayed (Aug. 4, 2026): En banc Third Circuit holds unconstitutional New Jersey’s laws prohibiting assault weapons, as to “all covered semi-automatic rifles,” and large-capacity magazines and remands for further proceedings; stays mandate pending New Jersey’s petition for certiorari 
3. Barnett v. Raoul, 180 F.4th 1035 (7th Cir. 2026): Seventh Circuit rejects facial challenge to Illinois’s laws prohibiting assault weapons and large-capacity magazines at history step of Second Amendment framework, specifically finding that the law’s “application to AR-15s and thirty-round rifle magazines is constitutional” 
4. United States v. DeFelice, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 2588603 (2d Cir. Sept. 2, 2026) (per curiam): Second Circuit rejects challenge to National Firearms Act’s restrictions on short-barreled rifles and silencers, concluding that defendant “failed to demonstrate that the NFA’s registration requirement implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment”  
5. United States v. Berger, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 2577367 (3d Cir. Sept. 1, 2026): Third Circuit upholds federal laws prohibiting the possession of unregistered machine guns and unregistered silencers, holding that “[m]achine guns are not in common use for lawful purposes” and “the federal registration requirement for silencers does not infringe the Second Amendment right”
6. United States v. Comeaux, 179 F.4th 297 (5th Cir. 2026): Fifth Circuit rejects facial and as-applied challenges to National Firearm Act’s restriction on silencers at text step of Bruen framework, holding that defendant “does not in any way rebut the presumption that the NFA’s shall-issue regime is lawful by asserting that it is being put ‘toward abusive ends’”; also concludes that “silencers are Second Amendment ‘Arms’” 
7. Rigby v. Jennings, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 2664371 (D. Del. Sept. 10, 2026): upholds Delaware’s restrictions on transporting, shipping, transferring, or selling ghost guns—i.e., unserialized firearms (including 3D-printed firearms) and unfinished firearm frames or receivers—at text step of Second Amendment framework; holds restrictions on possessing and manufacturing ghost guns unconstitutional, facially and as applied, and enters permanent injunction; also rejects First Amendment challenge to prohibition on distributing computer files used to create 3D-printed firearms
8. Defense Distributed v. Blanche, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 2413200 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 17, 2026): finds ATF’s final rule regulating the “frame or receiver” of a firearm unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as applied to plaintiffs and void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; enjoins enforcement of rule against plaintiffs “with respect to Defense Distributed’s M1911 80% Frames and G80 Build Kit, Unfinished Receiver, and Grip Module” 

Prohibited Persons

1. United States v. Hemani, 608 U.S. 772 (2026): In 9-0 ruling, Supreme Court holds 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) (prohibition on firearm possession by unlawful users of controlled substances) unconstitutional as applied to defendant, where only evidence was his admission that he used marijuana “about every other day”; finding that “the habitual drunkard laws on which the government relies here differ dramatically from § 922(g)(3)’s unlawful user provision”; Justice Thomas and Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Sotomayor, file concurring opinions; Justice Altio, joined by Justice Kagan, concurs in the judgment 
2. United States v. Levasseur, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 2731003 (1st Cir. Sept. 16, 2026): First Circuit holds 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (federal felony prohibitor) constitutional as applied to defendant with predicate conviction for methamphetamine possession
3. United States v. Aleman-Lozano, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 2579867 (3d Cir. Sept. 1, 2026): Third Circuit rejects facial challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(B) (prohibition on firearm possession by nonimmigrant visa holders) at history step of Second Amendment framework, determining that the law is consistent with “a historical tradition of disarming those considered disloyal to the sovereign” 
4. United States v. Richardson, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 2451537 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 21, 2026): D.C. Circuit holds 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (federal felony prohibitor) constitutional on its face and as applied to individuals, like defendant, under non-custodial supervision as part of a felony sentence
5. United States v. Baxter, 181 F.4th 898 (8th Cir. 2026): Eighth Circuit holds that, in an as-applied challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), government’s burden at step two of Second Amendment analysis is to demonstrate that defendant’s conduct is consistent with historical tradition “by a preponderance of the evidence”; finds that district court did not err in rejecting defendant marijuana user’s as-applied challenge under this standard, explaining that the Supreme Court’s decision under different record in Hemani “is not to the contrary”      
6. United States v. Rose, 180 F.4th 930 (7th Cir. 2026): Seventh Circuit holds 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) (federal mental-health prohibitor) facially constitutional; vacates district court’s dismissal of § 922(g)(4) charges and remands for reconsideration of defendant’s as-applied challenge under Rahimi and Hemani

Age Restrictions

1. Roache v. Lopez, No. 1:24-cv-00496 (D. Haw. Aug. 31, 2026): holds Hawai‘i law establishing 21 as the minimum age for firearm acquisition and ownership constitutional at history step of Bruen framework, concluding that the state’s age restriction is consistent with “Founding era common law and 19th century statutory prohibitions that were enacted in response to societal changes and technological advances in firearms”
2. Escher v. Noble, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 2517068 (D. Mass. Aug. 21, 2026): upholds Massachusetts law requiring people to be at least 21 years old to possess or carry a handgun or semiautomatic firearm at history step of Bruen framework, relying on both founding-era common-law restrictions and Reconstruction-era statutes 
3. Succow v. Blanche, No. 3:25-cv-00250, 2026 WL 2130113 (D. Conn. July 23, 2026): holds, after bench trial, that federal law prohibiting licensed dealers from selling handguns to individuals under 21 and Connecticut laws limiting the purchase, transfer, possession, or carrying of handguns by individuals under 21 are constitutional at history step of Bruen framework 
4. Eubanks v. State, --- So.3d ----, 2026 WL 1740598 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. June 17, 2026): Florida intermediate appellate court holds that state prohibition on concealed carry by individuals under 21 violates Second Amendment as applied to 18-year-old defendant

Public Carry

1. Wolford v. Lopez, 146 S. Ct. 2032 (2026): In 6-3 ruling, Supreme Court holds unconstitutional Hawai‘i prohibition on carrying firearms on private property open to the public absent the owner’s express consent, finding the statute “unquestionably imposes a new and significant burden on the exercise of the right recognized in Bruen”; Justice Barrett files a concurring opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Justice Gorsuch join in part; Justices Kagan, Jackson, and Sotomayor dissent

Sensitive Places

1. Silver Spring Jewish Center, Inc. v. Montgomery County, No. 8:26-cv-02963, 2026 WL 2664123 (D. Md. Sept. 10, 2026): preliminarily enjoins, on First and Second Amendment grounds, county law prohibiting firearms “in or within 100 yards of a place of public assembly” to the extent it prohibits plaintiffs, a synagogue and a rabbi, from selling, transferring, possessing, or transporting handguns in their places of worship; rejects plaintiffs’ challenge to county’s firearms restrictions within 100 yards of places of public assembly
2. Barreto v. Montgomery County, No. 8:26-cv-02912, 2026 WL 2664116 (D. Md. Sept. 10, 2026): denies motion for preliminary injunction in which plaintiffs challenge (i) provisions of county law “prohibiting firearm possession by a [p]ermit holder in a place of assembly (other than a school) that is privately owned but open to the public” and (ii) “the provisions prohibiting possession of a firearm by a [p]ermit holder while walking within 100 yards of any other place of public assembly”
3. Miller v. Mueller, No. 3:18-cv-03085, 2026 WL 2475779 (C.D. Ill. Aug. 3, 2026): upholds Illinois’s restrictions on firearms at home daycares and foster homes, concluding that those locations are “ sensitive places analogous to schools where firearms may be restricted”; also finds that the restrictions do not violate the unconstitutional conditions doctrine
4. Lafferty v. Pertl, --- N.W.3d ----, 2026 WL 2209841 (Wis. Ct. App. July 31, 2026): holds Wisconsin’s requirement that foster parents’ firearms be stored unloaded as a condition of obtaining a foster parent license violates both the Second Amendment and the state constitution; declines to address whether a foster home is a sensitive place

Other Regulations

1. Elite Precision Customs L.L.C. v.  Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 2796983 (5th Cir.  Sept. 18, 2026): In a 2-1 decision, Fifth Circuit holds federal restrictions on the interstate sale of firearms unconstitutional; rejects contrary ruling from the Second Circuit
2. United States v. Clerfe, 186 F.4th 141 (3d Cir. 2026): Third Circuit upholds federal laws prohibiting the export of firearms abroad without a license at text and history steps of Second Amendment framework