Grant v. Higgins: Assault Weapons Ban at the Supreme Court

Grant v. Higgins (formerly Grant v. Lamont) is a federal lawsuit challenging Connecticut's ban on assault weapons under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Originally filed in 2022, the case was granted Supreme Court review on June 30, 2026, and is set for argument on December 2, 2026. Supreme Court docket^[5]

Update on Supreme Court Review and December 2 Argument

The Supreme Court granted review in Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566, on June 30, 2026, limited to the question presented in Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238. The cases are consolidated for briefing and oral argument. Argument is set for December 2, 2026, and subsequent filings appear on the docket of No. 25-238. Supreme Court docket

The June 30 order grants review of the question presented in No. 25-238. It is a procedural order, rather than a decision resolving the merits of the challenge. Consolidated Supreme Court docket

The Parties

The case was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), the Connecticut Citizens Defense League (CCDL), and three individual plaintiffs. They argue that Connecticut's assault weapons ban, which prohibits possession, sale, and transfer of firearms defined as assault weapons under CGS 53-202a through 53-202c, violates the right to keep and bear arms.^[1]

Lower Court Proceedings

The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, declining to block enforcement of the ban while the case proceeded. On appeal, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision on August 22, 2025, in a consolidated opinion covering both Grant v. Rovella (now Grant v. Higgins) and NAGR v. Lamont (Nos. 23-1162 and 23-1344).^[1]

Writing for the panel, Judge John M. Walker held that Connecticut's challenged laws "impose targeted restrictions on unusually dangerous weapons while preserving numerous legal alternatives for self-defense and other lawful purposes" and are "consistent with our Nation's historical tradition of regulation of such weapons."^[2] The Second Circuit stated that it joined the First, Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits, every circuit to address the question, in approving restrictions on assault weapons and large capacity magazines.^[1]

The Supreme Court Petition

In November 2025, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari (No. 25-566), asking the Supreme Court to review the Second Circuit's decision.^[5] The central argument is that AR-15-style rifles are among the most popular firearms in the United States, numbering in the millions, and therefore qualify as arms "in common use" for lawful purposes, a category the Supreme Court has held is constitutionally protected.

On January 23, 2026, the petitioners filed a reply brief urging the Court to take the case and resolve the question of whether commonly owned semiautomatic rifles fall within the Second Amendment's protection.^[5]

The Bruen Framework

The case turns on the application of the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which held that firearms regulations must be justified by historical analogues from the nation's tradition of firearms regulation. The plaintiffs argue that the Second Circuit applied the Bruen framework too permissively by characterizing AR-15-style rifles as "unusually dangerous" rather than recognizing them as "in common use."^[3]

Current Status

As of October 21, 2026, the Supreme Court granted review in Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566, on June 30, 2026, limited to the question presented in Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238. The cases are consolidated for briefing and oral argument. Argument is set for December 2, 2026, and subsequent filings appear on the docket of No. 25-238. The June 30 order does not decide the merits or direct Connecticut to stop enforcing its assault weapons ban.^[5]