DOJ Amicus Brief: Federal Government Opposes Illinois AWB

On June 13, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus curiae brief in the Seventh Circuit supporting the NRA-backed challenge to Illinois's Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA). The filing marked an unprecedented shift in federal policy: it was the first time the Department of Justice had ever argued that a state assault weapons ban is unconstitutional.^[1]

Contents of the Brief

The DOJ brief advanced several arguments against Illinois's assault weapons and large-capacity magazine bans:

• Common use: The brief argued that the firearms banned under PICA -- including AR-15-style semiautomatic rifles -- are among the most commonly owned firearms in the United States. Under the Bruen framework, arms that are in common use for lawful purposes are presumptively protected by the Second Amendment.
• Historical tradition: The DOJ contended that the historical record does not support banning entire categories of arms that are commonly possessed by Americans. The brief argued that Illinois failed to identify historical analogues sufficient to justify the breadth of the PICA ban.
• Magazine limits: The brief also addressed the magazine capacity restrictions, arguing that magazines holding more than 10 or 15 rounds are standard for the most popular firearms and are therefore protected.

The brief was filed in the consolidated Seventh Circuit proceeding that includes Barnett v. Raoul, Bevis v. City of Naperville, and Harrel v. Raoul.^[1]

Significance

The DOJ filing represented a major policy reversal. Under previous administrations, the federal government had either supported or remained neutral on state assault weapons bans. During the Biden administration, the DOJ filed briefs defending assault weapons bans in multiple cases, including briefs supporting bans in Maryland and California. The reversal reflects a change in the executive branch's interpretation of the Second Amendment following the 2024 presidential election.^[2]

The amicus brief carries significant weight in the litigation. While the federal government is not a party to the case, the DOJ's position is typically given considerable deference by federal courts. The Solicitor General's office has a longstanding reputation for careful legal analysis, and its arguments may influence the Seventh Circuit's analysis of the historical-tradition test under Bruen. The brief also signals to the Supreme Court that the executive branch would support a cert petition challenging assault weapons bans.

Broader Federal Context

The DOJ filing in Barnett is part of a broader shift in federal firearms policy. The same administration has indicated skepticism toward other state-level firearms regulations and has deprioritized federal enforcement of certain gun control measures. The amicus brief in Barnett may be followed by similar filings in other circuits where assault weapons bans are being challenged, potentially creating a coordinated federal position against such bans across the country.^[2]

Reactions

The NRA described the filing as a landmark development, stating that the federal government's support validates the position that commonly owned firearms cannot be categorically banned under the Second Amendment. The Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation, which support the companion Harrel v. Raoul challenge, similarly praised the DOJ's intervention. Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul's office maintained that PICA is constitutional and that the historical record supports the state's authority to regulate particularly dangerous weapons. Gun violence prevention organizations, including Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords, criticized the brief as a departure from the federal government's traditional role in supporting public safety measures.^[1]

Impact on Pending Litigation

The DOJ brief added a new dimension to the consolidated Seventh Circuit proceeding. Oral argument took place on September 22, 2025, approximately three months after the brief was filed. The Seventh Circuit's decision, pending as of March 2026, could create or deepen a circuit split on the constitutionality of assault weapons bans, potentially setting the stage for U.S. Supreme Court review. If the Seventh Circuit strikes down the ban, it would be the first federal appellate court to do so, creating a direct conflict with other circuits that have upheld similar laws.^[3]