Illinois Assault Weapons Ban Faces High-Stakes Appellate Test

One of the country’s strictest gun laws will be under Seventh Circuit scrutiny again Monday, when gun-rights advocates—including the US Justice Department—are set to argue the court should reconsider its preliminary blessing of Illinois’ ban on assault-style weapons.

The Protect Illinois Communities Act was passed in the wake of a 2022 mass shooting in suburban Chicago, where a rooftop gunman fired an assault-style rifle into a crowded Independence Day parade. Seven people were killed and dozens were wounded.

In rejecting a preliminary injunction on the law in 2023, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that the weapons and high-capacity magazines covered by the ban don’t qualify as “arms” under the Second Amendment. Four consolidated challenges to the ban are now back before the court.

Some of the same attorneys who argued in 2023 are set to reappear, with one significant addition: Harmeet Dhillon, the US Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, is set to argue against the ban. The Department of Justice filed an amicus brief saying the law is “flatly unconstitutional.”

“I think that they’re teeing this up, putting the Supreme Court on notice that if we lose, then I think the Solicitor General is highly likely to come in and argue that the court should take this case,” said Todd Vandermyde of the Second Amendment Law Center, which filed an amicus brief.

Flood of Lawsuits

The law, which Gov. JB Pritzker (D) touted as “one of the strongest assault weapons bans in the nation,” became a magnet for legal challenges.

When a judge in the US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement, the state appealed to the Seventh Circuit, which considered the state law alongside municipal weapons bans in a consolidated case, Bevis v. City of Naperville.

The panel issued a split decision. Now-retired Judge Diane Wood, joined by Judge Frank Easterbrook, tossed the injunction, finding the banned weapons don’t qualify as “arms” protected under the Second Amendment as they are substantially similar to those reserved for military use.

But Judge Michael Brennan found that interpretation “cramped,” saying the Second Amendment plainly covers those weapons.

The majority noted their analysis was preliminary—their job wasn’t to definitively decide the law’s constitutionality. That will be up to Monday’s panel, the makeup of which hasn’t been revealed.

Since the injunction was tossed, the matter underwent a full trial, after which Southern District Judge Stephen McGlynn found the weapons ban unconstitutional and enjoined the law.

That well-developed record is enough to show the court’s initial decision in Bevis should be rejected, the gun-rights advocates argue.

The Illinois defendants argue Bevis got it right: The AR-15, for example, is designed to hit a “human-sized target” from 480 meters, the state’s brief claims, and can tear through sheetrock, making it improper for self-defense.

Attorney Billy Clark of Giffords Law Center, which filed an amicus brief supporting the ban, says he’s optimistic the law will survive Seventh Circuit scrutiny and that circuits around the country have upheld similar laws.

“These laws save lives. They are an essential tool in our fight against gun violence,” he said.

Vandermyde said the Seventh Circuit and other courts are “attempting to rewrite a test they disagree with.”

The proper legal question is whether a weapon is “dangerous and unusual,” and it can’t be “unusual” if it is in common use, he said.

A Higher Court

Some close watchers believe the Illinois case could make it to the US Supreme Court.

Justices declined to hear an appeal of the Bevis decision, but Justice Clarence Thomas wrote of the AR-15 that “if the Seventh Circuit ultimately allows Illinois to ban America’s most common civilian rifle, we can—and should—review that decision.”

Clark, however, noted that the high court has so far declined to take up the issue, including just a few months ago when it decided not to hear a challenge to Maryland’s ban.

“From my perspective, that shows that the court is, at least at this stage, not yet willing to intervene, even when there is a fully developed record,” he said.

Everytown for Gun Safety, which advocates gun-safety measures and filed an amicus brief in the underlying district court proceeding, is backed by Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg Law is operated by entities controlled by Michael Bloomberg.

Plaintiff-appellees are represented by Clement & Murphy, Swanson, Martin & Bell, Cooper & Kirk, David G. Sigale of Lombard, Ill., Maag Law Firm, and Michel & Associates. The Illinois defendants are represented by the state Office of the Attorney General.

The case is Barnett v. Raoul, 7th Cir., Nos. 24-3060, 24-3061, 24-3062, 24-3063 (cons.), oral arguments scheduled 9/22/25.