The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, entered an order today in the consolidated challenges to New Jersey’s ban on AR-15 semi-automatic rifles and its so-called large-capacity magazine limit — Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Attorney General New Jersey, No. 24-2415, consolidated with Cheeseman v. Platkin. The clerk, at the direction of the full en banc court, invited the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the impact, if any, of the Supreme Court’s brand-new decisions in Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Hemani. That is a procedural entry on a docket, and it may be the most consequential Second Amendment development of the week. Here is my read: the Third Circuit intends to decide these cases — and to decide them soon.
An Order That Telegraphs a Ruling
Recall the posture. The Third Circuit took these cases en banc and heard argument before the full active court in Philadelphia in October 2025. I urged at the time that Judge Jennifer Mascott’s confirmation be expedited so she could sit with her colleagues for that argument, and it was — she was confirmed and commissioned in time to participate. Since then, the court has held its decision. My assessment was that the en banc court was waiting to see what the Supreme Court did in Hemani, decided June 18, 2026, and Wolford, decided June 25, 2026, so it could incorporate the Court’s latest reasoning into its final opinion.
Today’s order confirms that reading. A court asks the lawyers what recent Supreme Court decisions mean for a pending case because it is writing an opinion that must account for them. Courts that intend to wait do not ask for briefs.
The Contrast With the Ninth Circuit
Compare what just happened on the other coast. On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238, consolidated with Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566, to decide whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semi-automatic rifles. Almost immediately afterward, the three-judge Ninth Circuit panel in Miller v. Bonta — the challenge to California’s assault weapons ban, twice struck down by Judge Roger Benitez — announced it will not decide that case until the Supreme Court rules in Viramontes. The Ninth Circuit is sitting on its hands.
The Third Circuit is doing the opposite. Rather than staying its consolidated New Jersey cases pending Viramontes and Grant, it is gathering the parties’ views on the freshest Supreme Court precedent. That is the conduct of a court preparing to speak, not a court preparing to wait. I have predicted before, and I stand by the prediction now, that within roughly the next month the en banc Third Circuit will issue a powerful opinion holding New Jersey’s semi-automatic rifle ban and its magazine ban unconstitutional.
Why the Third Circuit Wants to Speak First
The Third Circuit is among the strongest federal appellate courts in America on the Second Amendment, staffed with serious originalist judges — Thomas Hardiman, Stephanos Bibas, David Porter, Jennifer Mascott, and Emil Bove among them. Two structural incentives point toward a ruling.
First, the practical one. A strong Second Amendment record has become a credential for elevation to the Supreme Court. Then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh dissented in Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II), 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011), arguing that D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and its registration regime were unconstitutional — a dissent I suspect figured prominently in President Trump’s decision to elevate him. Then-Judge Amy Coney Barrett dissented in Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019), arguing that founding-era legislatures disarmed the dangerous, and that nonviolent felon status alone cannot extinguish Second Amendment rights. She, too, was elevated. Judges with aspirations understand the lesson.
Second, the institutional one. If the en banc Third Circuit strikes these bans now, it becomes the first federal court of appeals to hold an AR-15 ban unconstitutional — against the First, Second, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, which all got it wrong. An erudite en banc opinion, issued before merits briefing closes in Viramontes and Grant, functions almost like an amicus brief: citable by counsel and available to the Justices as they take up the question themselves.
The Road to June 2027
My expectation, based on the Court’s calendar math, is argument in the consolidated Viramontes and Grant cases in December 2026 and a decision by June 2027. One caution for the good of the order: the question presented covers semi-automatic rifles, not magazines or suppressors, so I do not expect the Court to squarely resolve magazine bans — though favorable language is possible. If the Court holds, as I have long predicted, that AR-15 bans are unconstitutional, the Third Circuit will stand vindicated as the one court of appeals that got it right. Today’s order tells me it intends to claim that ground.
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.