Pending SCOTUS Case Implications on Massachusetts – Assault Weapons Challenge
GOAL has received numerous inquiries concerning the possible implications of the combined Viramontes/Grant case scheduled to be heard before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) on December 2, 2026.
Massachusetts citizens continue to languish under a tremendously incomprehensible set of gun laws. Among them are unconstitutional restrictions on a host of semi-automatic firearms the Commonwealth has renamed “Assault Style Firearms”. Shortly after Chapter 135 was passed, GOAL filed suit in federal court,
Lawson v. Campbell. That case has been temporarily stayed pending the outcome of
Viramontes/Grant.
As to the question of what a positive outcome from SCOTUS and what it will mean for relief in Massachusetts, we are not able to answer. There is no crystal ball that allows us to predict what the Court would actually say in a good ruling. Further, even with a favorable ruling – how would the Massachusetts administration react? We know all too well that the Commonwealth’s reaction to Bruen was unconscionable. That being said there is no way for GOAL, or anyone else, to offer any kind of guidance at this juncture.
(Oral arguments are scheduled for December 2, 2026 with decision likely in June 2027.
History:
Scotus Blog Post: https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/court-grants-several-new-cases-including-on-whether-the-second-amendment-protects-possession-of-/
On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, two challenges addressing whether the Second Amendment protects possession of AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles. The cases were consolidated for briefing and oral argument. supremecourt.gov
Viramontes v. Cook County challenges an Illinois county’s prohibition on certain semiautomatic firearms. Cutberto Viramontes filed suit in 2021, arguing that the ban violates his constitutional rights. Lower courts upheld the prohibition, relying on Seventh Circuit precedent treating the restricted firearms as sufficiently similar to machineguns and military weaponry to permit regulation. The challengers contend that courts have misapplied Supreme Court precedent protecting commonly owned firearms.
Grant v. Higgins challenges Connecticut’s assault weapon ban, expanded following the Sandy Hook school shooting. A federal district court refused to temporarily block enforcement, and the Second Circuit affirmed. Challengers argue that firearms commonly used for lawful purposes cannot constitutionally be banned. Connecticut maintains that particularly dangerous weapons may be restricted despite their popularity.
Together, these cases could clarify constitutional limits on firearm bans nationwide, potentially affecting Massachusetts. That potential impact depends on the Court’s eventual reasoning and ruling. Oral argument is scheduled for December 2, 2026; accepting review has not itself invalidated either challenged ban.