It was a quiet yet significant moment this Monday. The United States Supreme Court chose—with as much deliberation as signal effect—not to intervene. Two central cases concerning gun rights in America were not taken up for hearing by the justices. As a result, Maryland’s ban on semiautomatic assault rifles remains in effect, as does Rhode Island’s restriction on large-capacity ammunition magazines. In a nation shaken by the political storm of polarization, such silence feels almost subversive. For the Court could have acted. Yet it left everything as it was. The conservative majority, which had previously significantly expanded gun rights—particularly with the landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022—now appears divided on how far the Second Amendment truly extends. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen im Jahr 2022 – zeigt sich nun uneins darüber, wie weit die zweite Verfassungsänderung tatsächlich reicht.
Three conservative justices dissented from the decision. Foremost among them, Clarence Thomas, who, in his passionate dissent, argued that the ban on AR-15 rifles—the nation’s most popular firearm—should be reviewed. “The question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding citizens,” he wrote. Joining him were Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. Brett Kavanaugh, meanwhile, stated that while he supported deferring the matter, he considered the lower court’s ruling—which upheld the ban—“questionable” and indicated that the issue could not be avoided in future terms. While the refusal to hear the case does not constitute a final substantive decision, it sends a clear signal: The Supreme Court is not prepared to aggressively challenge existing gun laws—at least not now, not in this configuration.
Maryland’s ban was a response to the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, where an AR-15 rifle was used to kill 20 children and six adults. In a ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the ban was upheld as “consistent with the Second Amendment.” Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III—a conservative nominated by Ronald Reagan—wrote: “Our nation has a long tradition of regulating excessively dangerous weapons once their disproportionate harm to society becomes evident.” Advocates for stricter gun laws celebrate the decision as a milestone. Maryland’s Attorney General Anthony G. Brown stated that the Court had “upheld a critical law that helps prevent avoidable deaths.” In stark contrast, the gun lobby reacted strongly. The Firearms Policy Coalition lamented that the Supreme Court “continues to treat the Second Amendment as a second-class right” and urged Donald Trump’s Justice Department to push more vigorously for a review.
In Rhode Island, a law banning ammunition magazines with more than ten rounds also remains in effect. The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that this restriction does not significantly impair the right to self-defense. Civilian self-defense, it stated, “rarely—if ever—requires the rapid and uninterrupted discharge of more than ten rounds.” This law, too, was a response to the rise in mass shootings and aligns with regulations that also prohibit silencers or armor-piercing ammunition. While the Court declined to hear these two cases, it granted review to four new cases to be addressed in the upcoming term. Among them is a case from Illinois, where a Republican congressman challenges the counting of absentee ballots received after Election Day, and a lawsuit by a U.S. soldier who was severely injured in an attack in Afghanistan and is suing the involved military contractor, Fluor.
A third case concerns forced labor in a private immigration detention facility in Colorado. A fourth case addresses whether police officers may enter homes without a warrant when they suspect an emergency is occurring inside. In addition to these cases, the Court drew attention—and disappointment—with another denial. It also declined to hear the lawsuit of a Black stripper from Texas who sued two clubs for racial discrimination. Chanel Nicholson argued that she had been repeatedly turned away over the years because management claimed there were “too many Black dancers” on duty. A district court had dismissed the lawsuit, reasoning that the initial act of discrimination occurred in 2014, and subsequent incidents were merely “effects” of that action
Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor disagreed with this perspective. In their view, each new discriminatory act initiates a new period for filing a lawsuit. However, they remained in the minority. Thus, the Supreme Court once again made no decision this Monday—yet had a significant impact. Not through words, but through the weight of silence. A silence that, in a republic rife with violence, leaves questions that can no longer be postponed.
English 
German 
