The petitioners challenging semiautomatic-rifle bans in Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut filed their opening merits brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on August 28. The consolidated cases are Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, docketed as Nos. 25-238 and 25-566. The filing asks the Court to hold that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect possession of AR-15-platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. It is an argument from the challengers, not a ruling, and it does not change either jurisdiction's law by itself.

Two bans, one question

The Supreme Court docket shows that the justices granted review on June 30, consolidated the cases for briefing and argument, and allotted one hour for oral argument. The Court took the Connecticut case only as to the question presented in Viramontes. The opening brief states that question directly: whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15-platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.

The challenged provisions reach the same broad rifle category through somewhat different definitions. According to the petitioners' brief, both Cook County and Connecticut name the AR-15 and also classify rifles by listed features. Connecticut's list includes folding or telescoping stocks, specified grips, a forward pistol grip, a flash suppressor, and grenade or flare launchers. Cook County identifies features including protruding grips, folding, telescoping or thumbhole stocks, a barrel shroud, and a muzzle brake or compensator.