Democrats spent years stacking federal courts with left-wing judges to hold the line on the Trump agenda.
That bet just came back to bite them in a big way.
A Biden-appointed judge just wrote a ruling that has the left scrambling — and now the US Supreme Court may use it to crush this massive Democrat priority
What the 3rd Circuit Actually Did
On July 17, 2026, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, declared New Jersey’s ban on semi-automatic rifles — including the AR-15 — and its ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
In a 10-5 ruling, the panel held New Jersey’s ban on “assault firearms” and magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
The majority opinion was written by Judge Ariana Freeman, a Biden appointee. Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern noted that Freeman is a “progressive appointee” who ruled that the millions of AR-15s in circulation prove they are in “common use for self-defense” and therefore protected by the Second Amendment.
Although Freeman is very much a liberal judge, this was not a grudging application of Heller and Bruen. She went all-out, enthusiastically applying a maximalist interpretation of Supreme Court precedents.
That’s not a small thing. Gun control groups have long counted on Democrat-appointed judges to find creative ways around Supreme Court precedent. Freeman didn’t do that. She followed the law where it led, and it led straight to striking down New Jersey’s ban.
In that ruling, the majority made clear that the state’s ban failed to survive the Bruen (2022) test, which is a two-tiered test examining the historicity and tradition of firearms and firearms regulation in America.
The court relied on evidence of roughly 24 million AR-15-style and similar rifles in circulation and on evidence that owners use them for self-defense, hunting, target shooting, and pest control.
“The text of the Second Amendment covers all magazines, not just magazines that New Jersey considers ‘standard capacity,'” US Circuit Judge Arianna Freeman wrote for the majority.
In one fell swoop, the Third Circuit shattered the current circuit court consensus on hardware bans en route to becoming the first federal appeals court to rule in favor of a gun-rights challenge to a state “assault weapon” and “large capacity” magazine ban.
New Jersey enacted these restrictions back in 1990. New Jersey originally enacted the restrictions in 1990. It effectively bans magazines exceeding 10 rounds and weapons deemed an “assault firearm,” a definition that covers AR-15s and similar models.
“Today’s decision from the Third Circuit invalidating New Jersey’s careful laws restricting the AR-15 and large capacity magazines is as unfortunate as it is legally incorrect. Every other federal circuit court to consider the issue has come out the other way,” New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport (D) said in a statement.
That last part is true — for now. But it’s also exactly why this ruling matters so much.
SCOTUS Already Has Its Eyes on This Issue
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in two cases challenging AR-15 bans, Viramontes v. Cook County, Illinois and Grant v. Higgins.
Review is limited to the question of whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess AR-15-platform and similar semi-automatic rifles in common use.
This is the first time since Heller that the Court will squarely address whether commonly owned semi-automatic rifles are protected “arms.” A ruling could decide the fate of “assault weapon” bans in Illinois, Connecticut, California, New York, Maryland, and other states.
Arguments are expected in fall 2026 — most likely between October and December — with a decision likely in spring or early summer 2027.
And that’s where the 3rd Circuit ruling lands with real force. The court, sitting en banc, ruled 10-5 against the Garden State’s laws, with Judge Arianna Freeman — a progressive appointee of President Joe Biden — writing the majority opinion. This lopsided vote may give the Supreme Court greater ideological cover to enshrine a nationwide right to assault weapons when it takes up the issue next term.
Gun rights advocates have been pointing to common ownership numbers for years. The courts are finally catching up to the plain meaning of the Second Amendment.
Why Slate Is Panicking — and What It Reveals
Lithwick and Stern expressed dread over their conviction that the 3rd Circuit’s ruling will provide “cover” to SCOTUS as the high court weighs protections for AR-15 ownership in light of the 2nd and 14th Amendments. “I can see…[SCOTUS’s] conservative supermajority boosting the fact that Judge Freeman wrote this opinion to emphasize that this isn’t just a liberal vs. conservative thing,” the article continues.
“Basically, I think this decision ultimately gives SCOTUS more cover to rule against assault weapons bans. It creates the false impression of consensus and momentum where it doesn’t actually exist.”
Read that again slowly. Lithwick and Stern aren’t upset that the law was applied incorrectly. They’re upset that a liberal judge applied it correctly, because now the Supreme Court can’t be accused of acting along partisan lines. Their complaint isn’t legal. It’s political.
The left built its gun control strategy around the idea that the Second Amendment could be hollowed out through the courts, one creative ruling at a time. Bruen blew that up in 2022 by requiring states to show a historical tradition for their restrictions — and most states can’t do it, because the Founders never banned commonly owned firearms.
New Jersey tried. It failed. And a Biden judge said so.
What’s really stinging the gun control crowd is that they spent years arguing these bans were obviously constitutional, that any judge who disagreed was a partisan hack, that the “assault weapon” label alone was enough to put these rifles outside the Second Amendment’s protection. Freeman’s opinion dismantles that argument from the inside. It’s hard to call a ruling politically motivated when the author is a progressive Biden appointee who followed the precedent wherever it led.
“This is a massive victory for the People and another devastating blow to the authoritarian war on gun owners,” said Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition, which filed one of the consolidated challenges.
The gun control lobby is also staring down a circuit split that makes Supreme Court review essentially inevitable. Eight days before the 3rd Circuit’s ruling, the Seventh Circuit decided Barnett v. Raoul and upheld Illinois’ Protect Illinois Communities Act in a 2-to-1 decision. Judge Amy St. Eve wrote the majority, joined by Judge Frank Easterbrook. Chief Judge Michael Brennan dissented, pointing out that the AR-15 is the best-selling rifle in America and that the banned magazines are standard capacity. So within nine days, two federal appeals courts looked at nearly identical questions and reached opposite answers.
The Supreme Court cannot ignore that split. It already hasn’t — it granted cert in Viramontes and Grant before the 3rd Circuit even ruled.
The question now is what happens when the justices actually weigh in. Justice Brett Kavanaugh had already signaled the answer. Kavanaugh called the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Snope “questionable,” noted that other circuits are still considering similar cases, and observed that opinions from other courts of appeals “should assist this Court’s ultimate decisionmaking on the AR-15 issue.” Once those opinions have been issued, Kavanaugh wrote, “this Court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next Term or two.”
That term is now here. The 3rd Circuit just handed SCOTUS exactly the kind of cross-ideological judicial consensus Kavanaugh was waiting for.
For law-abiding gun owners who have watched state after state try to ban the most popular rifle in America, this is the moment they have been waiting for. The AR-15 is not a weapon of war. It is a semi-automatic rifle owned by roughly 24 million Americans for hunting, home defense, sport shooting, and a dozen other entirely lawful purposes. The idea that the government can ban a firearm in that kind of widespread common use has always been constitutionally shaky — and the courts are finally saying so out loud.
Slate’s writers can call it “cover” if they want. Law-abiding Americans call it the Constitution working exactly the way it was written to work.
Sources: Breitbart News; Slate/Amicus podcast; The Hill; The Reload; Courthouse News Service; Reason/Volokh Conspiracy; Ammoland; Concealed Carry Inc.; Duke Center for Firearms Law; Second Amendment Foundation; NRA-ILA; JURIST; Gun Talk Media; Third Circuit Court of Appeals opinion (No. 24-2415)