The Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition just filed a cert petition at the U.S. Supreme Court in Kipke v. Moore, challenging Maryland’s sensitive-places laws — government-mandated gun-free zones that proliferated after Bruen as an excuse to hollow out carry rights. That filing is the headline, but the broader SCOTUS docket is what I want to work through, because understanding where Kipke fits means understanding every other 2A case sitting on the Court’s doorstep.
The Two Cases Already Argued — Wolford and Hemani
Two Second Amendment cases have already been argued this term and will be decided by June 2026. The first is Wolford v. Lopez, 24-1046, 116 F.4th 959 (9th Cir. 2024), which challenges Hawaii’s “vampire rule” — the state’s requirement that even a licensed carrier must get express owner permission before entering any business open to the public. That flips the presumption backwards: your constitutional right should be the default, not something you beg for at every gas station and grocery store. I expect that rule to fall.
The second is United States v. Hemani, 24-1234 — argued March 2026 — which puts 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the unlawful-drug-user firearms ban, before the Court. I have been critical of Solicitor General D. John Sauer’s decision to seek cert here, and I’ll say it again: poor vehicle. The Rahimi Court, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), held that a finding of physically violent dangerousness can justify temporary disarmament — whether casual drug use clears that bar is a stretch, and it was not a risk worth taking. Todd Blanche, as Acting Attorney General, sits above Sauer in DOJ hierarchy. If a similarly bad 2A vehicle surfaces in the future, Blanche has the authority — and the obligation — to say no.
Young Adults: GVR or Grant?
The young-adult cases have been held at the Court for months. Either the Court GVRs them — vacating and remanding for reconsideration in light of Wolford and Hemani — or the justices are holding them to grant cert next term. Both outcomes are realistic.
Three vehicles are in play here. NRA v. Glass, 24-185 (CA11), challenges Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act after the en banc Eleventh Circuit upheld its under-21 firearm-purchase restrictions 8–4. On the federal side, both McCoy v. ATF, 25-24 (CA4), and West Virginia Citizens Defense League v. ATF, 25-132 (CA4), challenge 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1), which bar FFLs from selling handguns to 18–20-year-olds. The Fourth Circuit upheld the federal ban in both cases — but the Fifth Circuit struck down that same law in Reese v. ATF, No. 23-30033 (5th Cir. Jan. 30, 2025). That circuit split is exactly the kind of trigger that pulls a grant.
My position: once you are a legal adult, you can vote, sign contracts, join the military, and get married. The argument that you forfeit the right to self-defense until 21 is constitutionally incoherent, and I think the Court knows it.
The AR-15 Backlog — Vehicles Matter
The AR-15 docket is crowded and not all vehicles are equal. Viramontes v. Cook County, 25-238 (CA7), has been relisted more than ten times — but the Seventh Circuit faulted the plaintiffs for not developing the record, which is nonsense: under Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), the burden is the government’s. Still, if I had to bet, the Court waits for cleaner vehicles.
The cleaner vehicles are Barnett v. Raoul in the Seventh Circuit and Cheeseman v. Platkin in the Third Circuit. Judge Stephen McGlynn built a solid record in the Southern District of Illinois before Barnett went up. Cheeseman, heard en banc with Trump appointees Judge Emil Bove and Judge Jennifer Mascott on the panel, could produce a circuit split — if the Third Circuit rules AR-15s are protected arms, the Court’s hand is forced.
Two Second Circuit petitions are also pending: National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont, 25-421 (CA2), covering Connecticut’s ban on AR-15-style rifles AND magazines over ten rounds, and Grant v. Higgins, 25-566 (CA2), targeting New York’s semiautomatic rifle restrictions. Both come up on preliminary injunction records — a vehicle concern similar to Viramontes — and I expect the Court to pass for now.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said as much when cert was denied in Snope v. Brown last June: the Court “should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next Term or two.” Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would have granted outright. The votes for a merits win are there — we just need the right case.
Magazines, Sensitive Places, and My Order of Battle
The magazine cases — Duncan v. Bonta, 25-198 (CA9), and Gator’s Custom Guns v. Washington, 25-153 (Wash. S. Ct.) — have been relisted repeatedly with no action. One telling signal: when Snope was denied, Justice Kavanaugh issued a statement about AR-15s; no justice said anything comparable about magazines. That asymmetry matters.
I am not entirely confident we can carry Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett on the magazine question. Magazines plainly facilitate armed self-defense and are “arms” under Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and Bruen — but I do not want to test that before we bank the AR-15 win. The Court could issue a narrow per curiam on the model of Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016), declaring magazines are arms under the plain text and GVRing both cases back down. That would be a win. But my preference: AR-15 first, then magazines and suppressors together.
Kipke v. Moore is the sensitive-places flagship. The case came out of a Fourth Circuit panel that included Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III — someone I think several justices would relish correcting on Second Amendment methodology. Maryland has filed a cross-petition, 25-1206, asking the Court to reverse the portion of the Fourth Circuit ruling that struck down the state’s private-property consent rule as unconstitutional. But sensitive places, too, can wait. Win AR-15. Win young adults. Then dismantle the gun-free-zone infrastructure case by case.
This article is based on analysis by Professor Mark W. Smith, constitutional attorney and Host of the Four Boxes Diner 2nd Amendment channel. Watch the original video here. This does not constitute legal advice.