Friedman v. City of Highland Park
The Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to Highland Park, Illinois's ban on many semiautomatic rifles and large-capacity ammunition magazines, leaving a Seventh Circuit ruling upholding the ban in place without explanation from the majority.
Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, dissented from the denial, arguing that lower courts are ignoring the Court's Second Amendment rulings in Heller and McDonald and that the Court should have stepped in to correct the Seventh Circuit's approach.
How it got here: A federal trial court granted summary judgment to the city; a divided Seventh Circuit panel affirmed; the challengers asked the Supreme Court to review the ruling, which the Court declined to do.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Highland Park, Illinois passed an ordinance banning the sale, possession, and manufacture of many semiautomatic firearms it labeled "Assault Weapons," along with ammunition magazines holding more than ten rounds. A Highland Park resident who wanted to keep such firearms for home self-defense, along with a gun-rights advocacy group, sued the city, arguing the ban violated the Second Amendment.
The question before the Court
Should the Supreme Court have taken up a challenge to a Chicago suburb's ban on many semiautomatic rifles and large-capacity magazines?
Why it matters
Highland Park's ban on assault-style rifles and large-capacity magazines stays in effect, and similar local and state bans elsewhere remain unreviewed by the Supreme Court. Gun owners and gun-control advocates alike are left without further guidance on how far the Second Amendment limits bans on commonly owned semiautomatic firearms.
What changes now
Because certiorari was denied, the Supreme Court will not review this case further, and the Seventh Circuit's decision upholding Highland Park's ban remains in force. This is not a ruling on the constitutional merits by the full Court — only Justice Thomas's dissent addresses the substance. Other jurisdictions with similar bans remain free to enforce them unless and until a future case prompts the Court to weigh in.
What this does not decide
The denial of certiorari does not decide whether Highland Park's ban is constitutional. It only means the Supreme Court chose not to review the Seventh Circuit's decision, leaving that ruling in place without the full Court ever ruling on the merits.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Thomas
“If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.”Thomas's warning about the consequences of upholding gun bans based on speculative safety benefits.
Justice Thomas argued the Court should have granted certiorari because the Seventh Circuit's decision upholding Highland Park's ban conflicts with Heller and McDonald. He contended the appeals court wrongly asked whether banned weapons were common in 1791, related to militia use, or whether alternatives existed, when Heller asks only whether a weapon is commonly owned for lawful purposes. He warned that letting cities ban common firearms based on speculative safety benefits guts the Second Amendment.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The dissent read the Court's decisions in Heller and McDonald as establishing that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep commonly owned weapons for lawful purposes such as self-defense, and that this right applies fully against city and state governments, not just the federal government.
- The dissent explained that the Seventh Circuit instead asked whether banned firearms were common in 1791, whether they relate to militia service, and whether citizens have adequate self-defense substitutes — a test the dissent said directly conflicts with Heller's rule that the right does not depend on militia usefulness and covers arms not existing at the founding.
- The dissent argued that under Heller the only relevant question is whether a weapon is commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, regardless of whether substitute weapons remain available, and noted that roughly five million Americans own the rifles Highland Park banned, mostly for lawful uses like self-defense and target shooting.
- Because Heller forbids weighing the Second Amendment's core protections against open-ended policy interests, the dissent contended the ordinance could not be justified merely by speculation that it might make residents feel safer, even without actually making them safer.
- The dissent concluded that the Seventh Circuit's ruling squarely conflicted with Heller and McDonald, and that the Court's refusal to intervene here — unlike its practice of summarily correcting other constitutional errors — effectively treated the Second Amendment as a lesser right.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Heller (554 U.S. 570)
The dissent treats Heller's recognition of an individual right to keep commonly owned firearms as still-controlling law.
Reaffirms McDonald v. Chicago (561 U.S. 742)
The dissent relies on McDonald's holding that the Second Amendment applies fully against states and cities.