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 June 11, 2026

Sensitive Places

1. Christian v. James, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 1378796 (2d Cir. May 18, 2026): Second Circuit rejects facial challenge to New York law prohibiting firearms in public parks, concluding that “the State has more than carried its burden, by demonstrating a long, unbroken history of prohibiting gun carriage in urban public parks”; holds unconstitutional New York’s prohibition on carrying firearms on private property open to the public absent the owner’s express consent
2. United States v. Davis, No. 1:26-po-00050, 2026 WL 1506498 (D. Idaho May 29, 2026): rejects challenge to federal prohibition on firearms at U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs facilities, explaining that “VA buildings, as federal government buildings, are ‘sensitive places’” where firearms may be banned 

Licensing and Public Carry

1. McCoy v. Jacobson, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 1466653 (8th Cir. May 26, 2026): Eighth Circuit upholds Minnesota law restricting carry permit reciprocity to certain states with similar permitting requirements at text step of Bruen-Rahimi framework, holding that “Minnesota’s reciprocity statute, standing alone, does not regulate arms-bearing conduct”

Prohibited Persons

1. Noyes v. State, --- S.W.3d ----, 2026 WL 1390770 (Tex. May 15, 2026) (per curiam): Texas Supreme Court grants, vacates, and remands for further consideration in light of Rahimi in case involving federal and state constitutional challenges to permanent protective order, “which prohibits [petitioner] from possessing any firearm for the remainder of his life”; in concurring opinion joined by three other justices, Justice Sullivan states “preliminary view” that, as applied to petitioner, Texas protective-order statute “likely violates” both the Second Amendment and the Arms Clause of the Texas Constitution

Restricted Accessories

1. United States v. DeBorba, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 1587553 (9th Cir. June 3, 2026): Ninth Circuit rejects facial challenge to National Firearms Act’s restriction on silencers, holding that “[s]ilencers are not ‘arms’ covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text, and the NFA is a shall-issue licensing regime that [defendant] has failed to show is being put towards abusive ends” 
2. People v. Spears, --- N.E.3d ----, 2026 WL 1458721 (Ill. App. Ct. May 22, 2026): Illinois intermediate appellate court rejects facial and as-applied challenges to prohibition on possession of ammunition and body armor by those with a prior felony conviction at text step of Bruen–Rahimi framework, ruling in particular that the “‘right of the people to keep and bear Arms’ does not extend to body armor”

Age Restrictions

1. Commonwealth v. Caruso, --- A.3d ----, 2026 WL 1529716 (Pa. Super. Ct. June 1, 2026): Pennsylvania intermediate appellate court rejects as-applied Second Amendment and state constitutional challenges to Pennsylvania firearms licensing statutes (18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 6106, 6108, 6109), which prohibit those under 21 from obtaining a concealed-carry license, at history step of Bruen–Rahimi analysis

Other Regulations

1. In re Poway Weapons & Gear, Inc., No. 25CV018964 (Cal. Super. Ct. June 9, 2026): California trial court dismisses complaint in Second Amendment challenge to state’s firearm retailer excise tax at text step of Bruen–Rahimi framework, holding that plaintiffs “fail to state a claim that the [state] excise tax imposes a meaningful constraint on individual Second Amendment rights”; grants plaintiffs leave until June 25, 2026 “to amend to attempt to state a claim within the meaningful constraint framework”