On September 9, 2026, the Solicitor General of the United States filed a motion asking the Supreme Court for something a private amicus almost never gets: a seat at the lectern. The motion asks the Court to grant the United States divided argument time in the consolidated AR-15 cases, Cutberto Viramontes, et al. v. Cook County, Illinois, No. 25-238, and Eddie Grant, Jr., et al. v. Ronnell Higgins, No. 25-566, set for argument on December 2, 2026. I have already walked through what the government’s amicus brief argued on the merits. This is a different document, and a bigger tell: the United States is not content to be read. It wants to be heard.
What the Motion Actually Asks For
Filed under Supreme Court Rule 28, the motion is procedurally precise. It reads:
“Pursuant to Rule 28 of the Rules of this Court, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the United States, respectfully moves that the United States be granted leave to participate in the oral argument in this case. The United States respectfully requests that the Court allot 20 minutes to petitioners, 10 minutes to the United States, and 30 minutes to respondents. Counsel for petitioners consents to this motion.”
Petitioners’ consent matters. It means the Second Amendment litigants in Viramontes and Grant — represented by David H. Thompson of Cooper & Kirk — agreed to surrender part of their own argument time so that the Solicitor General’s office could stand at the podium alongside them. That is not a formality. A party does not hand away minutes it does not have to spare unless it believes the government’s presence will do more good than the party’s own additional time would.
A Different Kind of Signal Than a Brief
I have spent years explaining that no filing carries more institutional weight at the Supreme Court than one from the Solicitor General’s office. A brief is powerful. Oral argument is different in kind. It puts a senior Justice Department official in front of the bench, answering questions in real time, on behalf of the President and the Department of Justice, stating without qualification that a categorical ban on AR-15 ownership violates the Second Amendment. The motion frames the stakes plainly:
“These cases present the question whether a categorical ban on the possession of AR-15 semiautomatic rifles infringes the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The United States has filed a brief as amicus curiae supporting petitioners, arguing that such a ban is unconstitutional.”
For the Justices most often described as occupying the Court’s ideological center — in my own assessment, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and, to a real degree, Justice Amy Coney Barrett — an institutional voice standing up in open court to defend that position carries a credibility that a paper filing, however well argued, cannot fully replicate.
The Government’s Own Track Record
The motion does not ask for this privilege cold. It cites precedent for the United States arguing as amicus in Second Amendment cases before this same Court:
“The United States previously presented oral argument as amicus curiae in other Second Amendment cases. See Wolford v. Lopez, 146 S. Ct. 2032 (2026) (No. 24-1046); NYSRPA v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (No. 20-843); NYSRPA v. City of New York, 590 U.S. 336 (2019) (No. 18-280); District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (No. 07-290). The United States’ participation in oral argument could materially assist the Court in its consideration of this case.”
That list is not incidental. It establishes that a divided-argument request in a Second Amendment case is a recognized practice, not a novel intrusion, and it puts Viramontes and Grant in the same procedural company as Heller itself.
Twenty-Seven States, One Position
The government is not alone on the page, either. Twenty-seven states — a majority of the fifty — have filed their own amicus brief supporting the petitioners, arguing that Connecticut’s and Cook County’s bans cannot be squared with the Second Amendment. Add the Department of Justice’s own Second Amendment Section, under Acting Chief Barry K. Arrington, and the record the Court will see on December 2 is not close to balanced between two private litigants. It is the United States government and a majority of state governments on one side of the lectern.
What December 2 Will Tell Us
The Court has not yet ruled on this motion. Rule 28 motions of this kind are routinely granted, and I expect this one to be granted as well, but that is my expectation, not a docketed fact. If it is granted, watch for what it signals beyond the courtroom: an executive branch under Attorney General Todd Blanche willing to spend its most credible advocate on this fight, not merely its paper. The argument itself is still three months away. The motion asking to make it happen is not a small thing on its own.
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.