People v. Benson: IL Felon Firearms Ban Under Bruen

On March 11, 2026, the Illinois Supreme Court heard oral arguments in People v. Benson, a case that challenges the constitutionality of the state's blanket prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons. The case applies the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 framework from New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen to argue that 720 ILCS 5/24-1.1 -- the felon-in-possession statute -- is unconstitutional as applied to individuals with nonviolent felony convictions.^[1]

Case Background

James Benson, a Cook County resident, was arrested on Christmas Eve 2021 following a domestic dispute with his girlfriend. During the altercation, a .40 caliber handgun was fired. Testimony at trial conflicted regarding who fired the weapon and who owned it.^[2]

Benson faced three charges: misdemeanor battery, reckless discharge of a firearm, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon under 720 ILCS 5/24-1.1. The felon-in-possession charge was based on a 2015 felony conviction for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW) without a Firearm Owner's Identification card. He was convicted on all three counts and received concurrent three-year sentences on the battery and reckless discharge charges, plus a four-year sentence for unlawful possession by a felon.^[1]

The Constitutional Challenge

Benson does not challenge the felon-in-possession statute on its face. Instead, he brings an as-applied challenge -- arguing that 720 ILCS 5/24-1.1 is unconstitutional as applied to his specific circumstances because his prior felony conviction was for a nonviolent offense. Section 24-1.1 prohibits any person convicted of any felony from "knowingly possess[ing] any firearm or any firearm ammunition." The statute draws no distinction between violent and nonviolent felonies, and the prohibition is permanent unless the conviction is reversed, expunged, the person receives executive clemency that specifically restores firearms rights, or the person obtains relief from the Director of the Illinois State Police under Section 10 of the FOID Act (430 ILCS 65/10).^[3]

The Bruen Framework

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen established a two-step test for evaluating firearms regulations under the Second Amendment. First, a court must determine whether the regulation burdens conduct that falls within the Second Amendment's plain text. If it does, the government must justify the regulation by demonstrating that it is "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." Under Bruen, courts may no longer apply the means-end scrutiny (intermediate or strict scrutiny) that was previously common in firearms cases. Instead, the government must identify historical analogues that demonstrate a tradition of similar regulation.^[1]

Defense Arguments

Elizabeth Cook of the State Appellate Defender's Office argued that "every free American is a member of 'the people' and entitled to full constitutional protection, including the right to bear arms." Cook contended that the blanket application of Section 24-1.1 to all felons -- regardless of whether the underlying offense involved any threat of violence -- fails to satisfy Bruen's historical tradition requirement.^[1]

To illustrate the breadth of the statute, Cook cited numerous Illinois felonies that involve no physical violence or threat of violence: "eavesdropping, driving on a revoked license, transporting hazardous waste without a permit, home repair fraud -- these things are all felonies that do not carry any threat of physical violence to another person." She argued that there is no rational basis for permanently stripping constitutional rights from individuals convicted of such offenses, and that historical practice does not support disarming nonviolent offenders on a permanent, categorical basis.^[2]

State's Response

Assistant Attorney General Garson Fischer argued that historical tradition firmly supports the felon-in-possession statute. He stated that "dating back to colonial times, penalties far more severe than mere disarmament were imposed on all felons, including nonviolent felons," and that disarming convicted felons is well within the historical tradition of American firearms regulation.^[1]

Fischer also pointed to Illinois's existing mechanism for firearm rights restoration: under Illinois law, a convicted felon may petition the circuit court for a FOID card by demonstrating that they do not pose a danger to themselves or the public. This process, Fischer argued, provides an individualized safety valve that addresses the concern about overbroad disarmament without requiring a constitutional ruling.^[2]

Cook countered that the FOID restoration process itself is constitutionally problematic under Bruen, because it places the burden on the individual to demonstrate fitness rather than requiring the government to justify the restriction -- the opposite of Bruen's framework, which places the burden of historical justification on the government.^[1]

National Context

People v. Benson joins a growing body of litigation across the country challenging felon-in-possession statutes under the Bruen framework. Federal circuit courts have reached conflicting conclusions on whether the Second Amendment protects nonviolent felons from permanent firearms prohibitions. The U.S. Supreme Court's 2024 decision in United States v. Rahimi upheld the federal domestic violence restraining order firearms prohibition but left unresolved the broader question of which categories of persons may be permanently disarmed. Benson represents the Illinois Supreme Court's first direct engagement with this question under the Bruen standard.^[4]

Potential Outcomes

The court's decision could take several forms:

• Narrow ruling for Benson: The court could hold that Section 24-1.1 is unconstitutional as applied specifically to Benson's circumstances, without broadly invalidating the statute. This would require future challenges to proceed on a case-by-case basis.
• Broader categorical ruling: The court could establish that the blanket prohibition on all felons possessing firearms fails the Bruen historical-tradition test when applied to categories of nonviolent felonies, requiring the legislature to draw distinctions based on the nature of the underlying offense.
• Uphold the statute: The court could find that the historical tradition of disarming felons -- combined with the FOID restoration pathway -- satisfies Bruen's requirements, leaving Section 24-1.1 intact.

Current Status

The Illinois Supreme Court took the case under review following oral arguments on March 11, 2026. The court did not indicate when a decision would be issued. A ruling favoring Benson could establish significant precedent affecting the firearms rights of individuals with nonviolent felony convictions throughout the state.^[1]