Supreme Court Second Amendment Update 5-29-2025
The United States Supreme Court continues to relist the “large capacity” magazine (Ocean State Tactical) and “assault rifle” (Snope) cert petitions. Ocean State Tactical has been distributed to a conference 17 times, and rescheduled twice, resulting in a net of 15 voting events. Snope has been distributed to a conference 16 times and rescheduled once, resulting in a net of 15 voting events. Masterpiece Cake Shop still holds the record for the most relists before being granted.
Although I hope that Ocean State Tactical and Snope win, it is more likely that the petitions will be denied, and the delay is due to a justice, likely Justice Thomas, writing a dissent to the denial.
On Tuesday, a dissent to the denial of cert by Justice Gorsuch (joined by Justice Thomas) was filed in Apache Stronghold. It had been distributed for a conference a net of 16 times.
I don’t think the relists will continue to the next SCOTUS term, which begins on the first Monday in October. I don’t think the relists will continue until the “Long Conference” at the end of September. There are five voting conferences left before the justices go on summer vacation. I think, for better or worse, we will have a decision on the petitions by the last scheduled voting conference on June 26th.
The last conference had just three Second Amendment cert petitions distributed for a vote. Ocean State Tactical and Snope were relisted, and the third petition was denied.
Today’s conference has seven Second Amendment cert petitions scheduled for a vote. Given the questions presented in five of the petitions, they were dead on arrival and never voted on. The petitions were placed on the SCOTUS dead list and will appear as petition denied on next Monday’s Orders list.
Currently, there are three Second Amendment cert petitions scheduled for the June 5th conference. One of those petitions is Andrew Hanson, et al., Petitioners v. District of Columbia, et al. No. 24-936, which is a petition from the final judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that upheld the district’s ban on magazines that hold more than ten rounds. Ocean State Tactical is a preliminary injunction appeal. Only Justice Alito has indicated that he would grant an interlocutory appeal of a Second Amendment case. Hanson might be why the Ocean State Tactical petition has survived, but we will never know. The only ones who know the reason are the justices and their clerks.
Here are the petitions scheduled for today’s voting conference. Clicking on the docket numbers will take you to the SCOTUS docket, where you can take a deeper dive into them, if you so desire. I invite you to read the briefs in opposition to the granting of the cert petitions. The briefs submitted by the Federal government reveal where this administration truly stands. A waiver to respond was filed in one of the cases. No justice requested a response, which means the petition will be denied.
Ocean State Tactical, LLC, dba Big Bear Hunting and Fishing Supply, et al, Petitioners v. Rhode Island, et al. No. 24-131 The questions presented are: 1. Whether a retrospective and confiscatory ban on the possession of ammunition feeding devices that are in common use violates the Second Amendment. 2. Whether a law dispossessing citizens without compensation of property that they lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the Takings Clause. David Snope, et al., Petitioners v. Anthony G. Brown, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of Maryland, et al. No. 24-203 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Constitution permits the State of Maryland to ban semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in America. Gregory Stump, Petitioner v. United States. No. 24-6669 QUESTION PRESENTED Stump asks this Court to determine whether 26 U.S.C. § 5861(h), which prohibits possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number, violates the Second Amendment on its face and, more narrowly, whether Second Amendment protected “conduct,” for purposes of Bruen’s step one, consists of anything other than an individual’s possession or carrying of a bearable firearm. Matthew Ryan Hunt, Petitioner v. United States. No. 24-6818 Questions Presented The questions presented are: 1. Whether defendants are precluded from asserting as-applied challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) under the Second Amendment, as the Fourth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits hold, or whether as-applied Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(1) remain available to defendants, as the Third, Fifth, and Sixth Circuits hold. 2. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s lifetime ban of firearm possession for all individuals previously convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in any jurisdiction violates the Second Amendment, either facially or as applied to the appellant, Matthew Hunt, who was previously convicted of a non-violent theft offense; namely, West Virginia breaking and entering a non-dwelling under W. Va. Code § 61-3-12. Valente Brito, Jr., Petitioner v. United States No. 24-7053 Question Presented for Review Did the Fifth Circuit err in denying petitioner’s argument that his federal firearms-related conviction violated the Second Amendment under plain error review, even after the issuance of recent Second Amendment opinions from this Court that substantially altered this area of law, and considering that there are seven other certiorari petitions pending in this Court on this issue? Christopher E. Barnes, Petitioner v. United States. No. 24-7075 (Waiver filed plus no response requested equals an automatic denile of the cert petition) QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Do convicted felons have Second Amendment rights, in light of this Court’s interpretation of “the people” in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592-95 (2008)? 2. Does 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) satisfy the Second Amendment in all of its applications? Aaron Christopher Lindsey, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6782 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether, as the Eighth Circuit held, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (which prohibits any felon from possessing firearms) is invariably constitutional both facially and as applied to any defendant, no matter the case-specific circumstances?