Decision from Judge McGlynn Expected in Next 30 Days!

Last month, a trial was held before Judge McGlynn in the Southern District of Illinois in several cases challenging Illinois’s ban on common semi-automatic firearms, magazines, and gun parts (Barnett v. Raoul, Harrel v. Raoul, Langley v. Kelly, and of course, Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois v. Pritzker).

The plaintiffs initially won a preliminary injunction blocking the laws from Judge McGlynn on April 28, 2023. The State appealed, and on November 3, 2023, the Seventh Circuit incorrectly ruled that the gun ban was constitutional and did not violate the Second Amendment. A petition was then filed with the Supreme Court to review that misguided opinion, and earlier in the summer, on July 2, 2024, were disappointed when that petition was declined. The incorrect ruling from the Seventh Circuit allowed Illinois’ ban on many commonly owned firearms to go into effect. However, the Supreme Court may very well accept the case later. A concurrence from Justice Thomas made clear that the reason the Court denied review was procedural – the case was before SCOTUS at that time on a preliminary injunction appeal. A final judgment had not happened yet in the lower court.

Significantly, SCOTUS did not decide that the cases challenging the Illinois law had no merit, and Justice Thomas concluded, “if the Seventh Circuit ultimately allows Illinois to ban America's most common civilian rifle, we can—and should—review that decision once the cases reach a final judgment.”

This means the case had to be litigated again in the trial court, which had previously agreed with our position and issued a preliminary injunction that the Seventh Circuit ultimately overturned. The litigation has been ongoing for months, leading up to the trial last month.

Preparation for the trial has been ongoing all summer, and it has been a lot of work. The work began assembling evidence, obtaining expert opinions, and preparing exhibits and witnesses.

The plaintiffs' attorneys all worked together to argue that while the Seventh Circuit’s ruling was incorrect, Plaintiffs should still prevail even under the Seventh Circuit’s erroneous and ahistorical standard. Our experts explained why firearms like the AR-15 are great options for self-defense and how they differ from their fully automatic counterparts that are used by the military. The State had “experts” of its own who we cross-examined, sometimes to comedic effect, such as one expert who stated his personal opposition to the law.The plaintiffs closed by arguing that their expert witnesses had shown how the features Illinois had banned were very useful for self-defense. The firearms at issue are not exclusively or predominantly used by the military but are instead commonly used by regular citizens for lawful purposes, including self-defense. 

Final trial briefs are due today. We believe Judge McGlynn will then issue his ruling sometime before Thanksgiving.

Once the district court issues a final judgment following the trial, the matter will move back to the Seventh Circuit and possibly to the Supreme Court.

 We could use your support as we continue to fight for your Second Amendment rights in Illinois.