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

Barnett v. Raoul (S.D. Ill., Case No. 23-cv-209) is the most prominent 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. Backed by the National Rifle Association, 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.^[1]

Background: The Protect Illinois Communities Act

The Protect Illinois Communities Act (Public Act 102-1116) was enacted in response to 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, making Illinois one of a handful of states to enact a comprehensive assault weapons ban in recent years.^[2]

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 limits magazine capacity to 10 rounds for rifles and 15 for handguns and bans rapid-fire devices such as bump stocks and trigger cranks. Individuals who possessed banned firearms before the effective date were required to register them by submitting an endorsement affidavit to the Illinois State Police, with the ISP accepting submissions beginning October 1, 2023 and a filing deadline of January 1, 2024.^[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.^[3]

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.^[1]

On November 3, 2023, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed 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, arguing that the majority applied an overly restrictive interpretation of Bruen and that semiautomatic rifles are plainly covered by the Second Amendment's text.^[3]

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 applied statewide, enjoining enforcement of the PICA provisions against all Illinois residents.^[1]

On December 5, 2024, the Seventh Circuit stayed the permanent injunction pending appeal, which kept the ban enforceable while the appeal proceeded. The stay was granted on the basis that the State demonstrated a likelihood of success on appeal and that the public interest favored maintaining the status quo during the appellate process. 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. Bevis ended at the preliminary-injunction stage when the Supreme Court denied certiorari in July 2024. The consolidation ensured that the major constitutional challenges to PICA were resolved in a single appellate decision, with the legal arguments of the NRA, FPC, SAF, and other plaintiffs all considered together. The consolidated cases involved permanent injunctions from the Southern District of Illinois, issued in November 2024, that the Seventh Circuit stayed pending the appeal.^[3]

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 NRA-backed challenge -- the first time the federal government has argued against a state assault weapons ban. 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 Bruen requires the government to identify regulations that are analogous in both burden and justification to the challenged law, and that Illinois had failed to meet this standard. The filing represented a significant policy reversal from prior administrations and added a new dimension to the litigation.^[4]

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 is reversed outright, no injunction against PICA exists at any level, and the law is fully enforceable. The case is widely viewed as one of the most significant post-Bruen Second Amendment cases in the country, with implications far beyond Illinois.^[3]

The National Shooting Sports Foundation has announced that it will seek U.S. Supreme Court review, though no petition had been filed as of July 23, 2026. 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 one hour of argument allotted for the October 2026 term. The Fourth Circuit upheld Maryland's assault weapons ban en banc in Bianchi/Snope v. Brown (August 2024); the Supreme Court denied certiorari. Challenges to assault weapons bans remain pending in the Third Circuit (New Jersey) and Ninth Circuit (California), the Third Circuit is reviewing New Jersey's ban, and the Ninth Circuit has cases pending regarding California's restrictions. The federal government's position opposing such bans adds further weight to the likelihood of eventual Supreme Court review.^[5]