Major Gun Cases in 2026 Pose Questions for Courts Nationwide

Does the Constitution protect your right to bring a gun to a museum? Can a state ban AR-15s? Should you have to wait three days before taking a new firearm home? What about seven?

Federal appeals courts in 2026 will be considering those questions and more, navigating a landscape that’s still coming into focus after the US Supreme Court’s game-changing 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

That ruling found that in order to pass Second Amendment muster, a law must be “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Three years later, the post-Bruen legal landscape is still coming into focus, experts said.

Complicating the matter for appellate courts, the US Supreme Court is slated to decide two Second Amendment-related cases next year: Wolford v. Lopez and US v. Hemani.

“Every time the Supreme Court of the United States now takes up one of these cases, there’s this kind of meta-question about how you apply the Bruen framework to any Second Amendment question,” said Darrell A.H. Miller, a law professor at the University of Chicago. “Depending on how they’re written, it’s likely to have some effect on how lower courts decide cases on discrete Second Amendment issues.”

Assault Weapons

So far, federal appeals courts are united in upholding bans on assault-style firearms such as the AR-15. That’s likely because the more gun-friendly circuits don’t include states that have prohibited such weapons.

That unanimity could be challenged in 2026.

The Ninth Circuit, which this year upheld bans on machine guns and large-capacity magazines, is expected to ultimately validate California’s assault-weapons ban. The Seventh Circuit might soon decide whether Illinois’ sweeping prohibition is illegal.

But, experts said, the Third Circuit is the court to watch.

A challenge to New Jersey’s AR-15 ban was heard by a three-judge panel over the summer—and then, before the panel rendered a decision, the court, without being asked, decided to hear the case again en banc.

“The Third Circuit case might be the first final appellate decision that does strike down an assault weapons ban,” said Andrew Willinger, executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law. “I would not be surprised.”

That’s because the court’s balance has now tipped toward judges appointed by Republicans. The en banc oral arguments in the assault weapons case featured the debut of two Trump appointees.

‘Sensitive Places’

Multiple circuits are considering whether states can ban guns in certain “sensitive” locations, an analysis that has become more complicated since Bruen.

Before that decision, advocates could point to “modern empirical data” showing it might be particularly dangerous to have a firearm in a certain place, Miller said.

But post-Bruen, attorneys have to look to history: “Instead of asking a question like ‘how dangerous is it to have a firearm on the subway?’ the question became ‘what kind of historical regulations look most like a prohibition on firearms in the subway?’” he said.

The Fourth Circuit could decide a case involving Maryland’s bans on carry in a number of places, including museums, school grounds, and state parks.

A Third Circuit panel largely upheld New Jersey’s ban on guns in places like schools and casinos, but this month, judges announced they would hear the case en banc. Arguments before the full court are scheduled for Feb. 11.

‘Who’ Cases

That same day, the full Third Circuit is also expected to hear a pair of what the Second Amendment Foundation’s Kostas Moros calls “who” questions, in which judges will consider who can be prohibited from owning firearms.

James Bost argues the criminal statute barring felons from firearm possession is unconstitutional. Edward Williams, in a civil case, claims he shouldn’t be barred from gun ownership because of a long-ago DUI.

While a Bruen historical analysis supports the idea of disarming “dangerous” people, “there’s still plenty of room for debate on who counts as a dangerous person,” said Moros, the SAF’s Director of Legal Research and Education, who says he expects the court might rule against Bost but in favor of Williams.

Waiting periods

Waiting periods for gun purchases were “universally upheld” until recent decisions in the District of Maine and the Tenth Circuit, said Billy Clark, senior litigation attorney at Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Modern research shows that waiting periods are very effective in reducing gun violence, Clark said, but Bruen demands a historical analysis. While there may have been no formal waiting periods in early America, he said, it was understood that many products took a long time to reach their intended recipients.

“It’s a nuanced historical inquiry,” he said. “What parts of history are we looking at? And to what extent can legislatures respond to social science evidence in the 20th and 21st Century that shows these laws are effective?”

The District of Maine’s decision is on appeal at the First Circuit, where it was argued in July. The Second Circuit is expected to hear a case involving Vermont’s three-day waiting period.

The Tenth Circuit denied a request for an en banc rehearing after a panel rejected New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period.

There’s a chance, said Willinger, that appeals courts don’t make significant moves in gun cases until the second half of 2026, after the Supreme Court has rendered decisions in Wolford and Hemani.

“You don’t know for sure what the Supreme Court is going to do,” he said. “Usually there will be a lot of momentum to just say ‘let’s wait and see.’”

Everytown for Gun Safety, which advocates for gun-safety measures, is backed by Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg Law is operated by entities controlled by Michael Bloomberg.