Supreme Court Rejects 22 Gun Rights Cases, Leaving Major Firearm Restrictions in Place
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected 22 gun rights cases on November 9, 2026, declining to review challenges to lifetime firearm prohibitions, misdemeanor-based gun bans, and restrictions imposed before a criminal conviction. The decisions leave several significant Second Amendment questions unresolved, even as the justices prepare to hear a landmark challenge to bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles.
Washington Gun Law President William Kirk highlighted the sweeping denials in a November 10 video, examining the cases rejected by the justices and several important Second Amendment challenges that remain pending. Kirk described the latest orders as a troubling development for gun owners, particularly those challenging federal firearm prohibitions and state laws that disarm individuals without felony convictions.
According to the Court’s November 9 orders list, 16 of the rejected cases involved challenges to federal or state felony-based firearm prohibitions. Other petitions questioned whether Americans can lose their gun rights over misdemeanor convictions, whether individuals under federal indictment can be prohibited from receiving firearms, and how far the government can go in permanently disarming people.
The decisions come as the justices prepare to hear arguments on December 2 in two major cases challenging bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles. The contrast is difficult to ignore. While the Supreme Court prepares to address the constitutionality of AR-15 bans, numerous other restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms remain untouched.
Supreme Court Leaves Felon Disarmament Laws Untouched
The largest group of rejected cases involved challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the federal prohibition on firearm possession by individuals convicted of crimes punishable by more than one year of imprisonment, or comparable state restrictions.
Several petitioners argued that the government cannot constitutionally impose lifetime firearm prohibitions on people whose prior convictions involved nonviolent offenses. Others challenged the federal law more broadly, questioning whether its sweeping restrictions can be reconciled with the Second Amendment.
In Foster v. United States, No. 26-5672, for example, the petitioner argued that the federal government cannot permanently disarm citizens whose prior felony convictions involved only nonviolent offenses. Barge v. United States, No. 26-5688, raised a similar challenge involving a decade-old nonviolent drug distribution conviction. The Supreme Court declined to hear both cases.
That refusal leaves unresolved a constitutional question with enormous consequences: Does a criminal conviction automatically justify the permanent loss of a fundamental constitutional right, regardless of whether the underlying offense involved violence or demonstrated that the individual poses a danger?
The Second Amendment protects a right, not a privilege granted at the government’s discretion. A lifetime prohibition imposed without an individualized assessment of dangerousness deserves serious constitutional scrutiny, particularly when the underlying offense had nothing to do with violence or the misuse of a firearm.
Washington’s Misdemeanor DUI Gun Ban Survives
One of the most troubling denials involved Holloway v. Brown, No. 26-300, a challenge to Washington state’s prohibition on firearm possession following a second qualifying misdemeanor driving-under-the-influence conviction within seven years.
Under Washington law, an individual can become prohibited from possessing firearms after two qualifying misdemeanor DUI convictions, even without a felony conviction.
The petition asked whether this automatic disarmament violates the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court declined to take the case, leaving the Washington Supreme Court’s judgment undisturbed.
Driving under the influence is a serious offense, and individuals who endanger others should face appropriate criminal consequences. But that does not answer whether misdemeanor convictions unrelated to firearm possession justify stripping someone of an enumerated constitutional right.
Washington Gun Law President William Kirk warned that the state’s approach could become a model for lawmakers elsewhere. In his November 10 video, Kirk expressed concern that governments could increasingly designate misdemeanor offenses as grounds for disarming individuals who have never been convicted of a felony.
The constitutional implications extend well beyond DUI convictions. If lawmakers can continue expanding the categories of misdemeanor offenses that trigger firearm prohibitions, Americans could find themselves permanently deprived of an enumerated right without ever having been convicted of a violent crime. The Supreme Court’s refusal to review Holloway leaves that question unresolved.
Gun Rights Restricted Without a Criminal Conviction
Another rejected petition, Trevino v. United States, No. 26-5629, challenged 18 U.S.C. § 922(n), which generally prohibits individuals under indictment for qualifying crimes from shipping or transporting firearms or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving firearms or ammunition that have moved in interstate or foreign commerce.
Unlike the federal felon-in-possession prohibition, this restriction does not require a conviction. It applies while a qualifying criminal charge remains pending.
The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the law’s prohibition on receiving firearms and ammunition while under indictment. The Supreme Court declined review, leaving that constitutional challenge unresolved.
An indictment is an accusation, not a conviction. The government’s authority to restrict an enumerated constitutional right before guilt has been established raises serious questions about due process and the historical limits of firearm regulation.
The Court also rejected Minor v. United States, No. 25-7656, which questioned whether misdemeanor domestic violence convictions can justify lifetime firearm prohibitions without a judicial finding that an individual poses a credible threat to another person’s safety.
These cases involve different statutes and circumstances, but they raise a common constitutional concern: Whether the government can permanently or substantially restrict the right to keep and bear arms without demonstrating that the individual falls within a historically recognized category of persons subject to disarmament.
Major Second Amendment Battles Remain Before the Court
Despite the wave of denials, the Supreme Court still has major Second Amendment questions on its docket.
On December 2, the justices will hear oral arguments in Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238, and Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566. Both cases involve restrictions on semiautomatic rifles, including firearms commonly owned by Americans for lawful purposes.
As AmmoLand recently reported, Cook County has attempted to derail its case before oral arguments by arguing that the remaining dispute is moot. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s November 9 orders granted the Solicitor General permission to participate in oral arguments, placing the federal government directly into the litigation alongside the petitioners.
Other Second Amendment cases remain pending, including Novotny v. Moore, No. 25-1324, which challenges Maryland restrictions on carrying firearms in numerous public places. That petition is scheduled for the Court’s November 13 conference.
These pending cases could provide additional opportunities for the justices to enforce the constitutional protections recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
A Constitutional Right Should Not Depend on Judicial Reluctance
It is important to understand what the November 9 denials actually mean. When the Supreme Court denies a petition for certiorari, it does not necessarily endorse the lower court’s reasoning or declare the challenged law constitutional. It simply declines to review the case.
But for Americans prohibited from owning firearms under the laws being challenged, that distinction offers little practical relief. The restrictions remain enforceable, and the constitutional questions remain unanswered by the nation’s highest court.
Bruen established that governments must justify restrictions on Second Amendment conduct through the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. That constitutional standard should apply consistently, whether the government is attempting to ban commonly owned rifles, prohibit public carry, or permanently disarm individuals.
The Supreme Court has an opportunity to deliver another landmark Second Amendment decision when it hears the AR-15 cases in December. Yet the November 9 denials are a reminder that the fight to secure the full protection of the right to keep and bear arms extends far beyond semiautomatic rifle bans.
The Second Amendment is not a privilege that government officials get to selectively distribute. It is a constitutional guarantee, and its protections should not disappear merely because the Supreme Court declines to examine the law taking them away.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.