Grant v. Rovella: 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 is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari.^[1]

Update: 5 SCOTUS Relists, April 17 Next Conference

As of April 12, 2026, the cert petition has now been relisted five times at the U.S. Supreme Court. It was distributed to the Court's April 2, 2026 conference but did not appear on the orders list issued April 6. The next scheduled conference is April 17, 2026, where 14 Second Amendment cases are pending consideration.

Per the Duke Center for Firearms Law: "No movement... following the April 2 conference; none was listed on the Orders List as of April 6." Five relists is unusual and is often interpreted as signaling that one or more Justices are drafting a dissent from denial of certiorari, though it can also indicate that the Court is considering whether to grant review. A grant, a denial-with-dissent, or a denial without comment could all emerge from the April 17 conference.

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.^[2]

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. Higgins and NAGR v. Lamont (Nos. 23-1162 and 23-1344).^[3]

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 the nation's historical tradition of regulation of such weapons."^[4] The Second Circuit became the sixth federal appellate court to uphold assault weapons bans in the post-Bruen era.^[3]

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.^[2] 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 SAF 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."^[5]

Current Status

As of the May 14, 2026 audit, the cert petition (No. 25-566) remains pending at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court docket links the case with No. 25-421 and shows repeated conference distributions, most recently a May 11, 2026 distribution for the May 14, 2026 conference. No grant or denial appears on the docket as of this update. Connecticut's assault weapons ban remains in full effect while the petition is pending.^[6]