Barnett v. Raoul: The Challenge to Illinois's Assault Weapons Ban

Barnett v. Raoul (S.D. Ill., Case No. 23-cv-209) is a legal challenge to the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA), the statewide assault weapons and large-capacity magazine ban signed into law on January 10, 2023. The case applies the U.S. Supreme Court's Second Amendment framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) to argue that Illinois's ban is unconstitutional.^[7]

Background: The Protect Illinois Communities Act

The Protect Illinois Communities Act (Public Act 102-1116) was enacted after the July 4, 2022, mass shooting at a Highland Park Independence Day parade, where a gunman killed seven people and injured dozens more. Governor JB Pritzker signed the bill on January 10, 2023.^[2]

Subject to statutory exceptions, the law bans the sale, purchase, and manufacture of assault weapons as defined by specific features (such as pistol grips, folding stocks, and flash suppressors on semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines) and by named models (including AR-15 and AK-47 variants). It bans magazines that hold more than 10 rounds for long guns or more than 15 rounds for handguns, subject to statutory exceptions, and bans rapid-fire devices such as bump stocks and trigger cranks. Unless exempt, individuals who lawfully possessed assault weapons before January 10, 2023 were required to submit an endorsement affidavit to the Illinois State Police prior to January 1, 2024. The statute required ISP to prescribe the form and manner no later than October 1, 2023.^[2]

The Bruen Framework

The legal foundation for the Barnett challenge is the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen, which established a two-step test for evaluating firearms regulations under the Second Amendment. First, the court asks whether the regulated conduct falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment, that is, whether the arms at issue are the type of "arms" protected by the constitutional text. If so, the government bears the burden of demonstrating that the regulation is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation. Under this framework, courts must look for historical analogues rather than apply the means-end scrutiny (such as intermediate scrutiny) that many lower courts had previously used.^[5]

Procedural History

On April 28, 2023, U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn in the Southern District of Illinois issued a preliminary injunction, finding that the bans likely violate the Second Amendment under the Bruen framework. The court determined that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits because the banned firearms are "arms" in common use for lawful purposes and because the State failed to identify a sufficient historical analogue for the ban.^[8]

On November 3, 2023, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction in a 2-1 decision. The majority, composed of Judges Diane Wood and Frank Easterbrook, held that the bans likely do not violate the Second Amendment, reasoning that states have historically regulated particularly dangerous weapons and that the banned firearms fall into a category of arms that may be restricted. Judge Michael Brennan dissented, concluding that the government parties had not shown the bans fit the history and tradition of firearms regulation and that semiautomatic rifles are plainly covered by the Second Amendment's text.^[6]

District Court Permanent Injunction

On November 8, 2024, following a full bench trial, Judge McGlynn entered a permanent injunction striking down the assault weapons ban, the magazine capacity limits, and the registration scheme. The court found that the banned firearms and magazines are protected by the Second Amendment because they are in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, and that the State of Illinois failed to demonstrate a historical tradition of analogous regulation as required by Bruen. The ruling barred the State of Illinois from enforcing PICA against anyone, but the court stayed its permanent injunction for thirty days.^[1]

On December 5, 2024, the Seventh Circuit stayed the district court's judgment until its mandate issued, which kept the ban enforceable while the appeal proceeded. The court reasoned that the Bevis analysis gave the laws enough support to remain in place until final resolution and that other circuits had upheld similar laws. It also found that a stay was the only way to preserve the status quo statewide. PICA therefore remained in force throughout the appeal, and the July 9, 2026 decision reversing the injunction left it fully enforceable.

Consolidation at the Seventh Circuit

Barnett v. Raoul was consolidated at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit with Harrel v. Raoul (the FPC/SAF challenge), Langley v. Kelly, and Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois v. Pritzker, docketed as Nos. 24-3060 through 24-3063. Bevis v. City of Naperville was not part of this merits appeal. The Supreme Court denied review of the preliminary-injunction ruling in July 2024. The four consolidated challenges were considered together in a single appellate decision. The consolidated cases involved permanent injunctions from the Southern District of Illinois, issued in November 2024, that the Seventh Circuit stayed pending the appeal.^[5]

The consolidation meant that a single Seventh Circuit ruling resolved all of the consolidated PICA challenges simultaneously. That ruling came on July 9, 2026, when the court upheld the ban and reversed the district court judgments across the consolidated cases, with directions to enter judgment for the defendants.

DOJ Amicus Brief

On June 13, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief supporting the challengers and affirmance of the district court injunction. The brief contended that the banned firearms are in common use and that the historical record does not support banning entire categories of arms commonly possessed by Americans. The DOJ argued that a complete ban on firearms in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful reasons violates the Second Amendment. ^[3]

Current Status and Broader Implications

The Seventh Circuit heard oral argument on September 22, 2025, and issued its decision on July 9, 2026. In a 2-1 ruling, the court reversed the district court judgments and remanded with directions to enter judgment for the defendants, upholding PICA. Judge St. Eve wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Easterbrook, and Chief Judge Brennan dissented. The November 2024 permanent injunction was reversed, and PICA remains enforceable under that ruling.^[5]

On September 25, 2026, Justice Barrett granted application 26A404, extending the deadline for the Barnett challengers to file a certiorari petition until November 6, 2026, and on October 19, 2026 she extended it again to December 4, 2026. Those orders extend the filing period without granting review of the case. Read the application docket. Separately, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on June 30, 2026 in Viramontes v. Cook County (No. 25-238), consolidated with Grant v. Higgins (No. 25-566), on whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles, with argument scheduled for December 2, 2026. The Fourth Circuit upheld Maryland's assault weapons ban en banc in Bianchi/Snope v. Brown (August 2024); the Supreme Court denied certiorari. The en banc Third Circuit decided the challenge to New Jersey's ban on July 17, 2026 and stayed its mandate on August 4, 2026, and the Ninth Circuit challenge to California's assault weapons restrictions remains pending.^[4]