Viramontes v. Cook County
No. 25-238 · October Term 2026 · Civil Rights · argument December 2, 2026
Expected vote 6–3 for Viramontes. Chance of a unanimous ruling 42%.
Before oral argument the model knows only the case's structure: the issue area, which way the lower court ruled, and each justice's record on both. That is not enough to separate cases, so every unargued case carries the petitioner's base rate. The transcript features arrive within days of argument and the number becomes a call.
The case
Cutberto Viramontes and other petitioners are suing Cook County, Illinois, over its ban on certain semiautomatic rifles, including AR-15s, arguing the ban violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a lower court's decision in favor of Cook County. The Supreme Court must now decide whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.
- Does the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms extend to modern semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15, which are commonly used for self-defense?
- How should the Court apply its precedents in *District of Columbia v. Heller* and *McDonald v. City of Chicago* to determine the constitutionality of bans on specific types of firearms?
- Does the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause incorporate the Second Amendment right against state and local governments, and what level of scrutiny should apply to such regulations?
AI brief written by gemini-2.5-flash from the questions presented and the Oyez facts on 2026-10-02. Commentary only; it is not an input to the model.
Question presented, as filed
BY THE PETITION IN NO. 25-238. CONSOLIDATED WITH 25-566 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. CERT. GRANTED 6/30/2026 QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.
Facts of the case (Oyez)
Cook County, Illinois, enacted a law banning the possession, sale, and transfer of what it labels assault weapons. The ban covers more than 100 specifically named semiautomatic rifles, including AR-15 and AK-47 platform rifles, as well as any semiautomatic rifle that can accept a magazine holding more than ten rounds of ammunition and has at least one of several listed physical features, such as a folding stock, a pistol grip, or a barrel shroud. Anyone who possesses a banned rifle faces criminal penalties including up to six months in jail and a minimum $5,000 fine for a first offense. The AR-15 rifle has been sold to civilians since the 1960s and remains legal in the vast majority of states. Cutberto Viramontes and Christopher Khaya are Cook County residents who want to acquire semiautomatic rifles covered by the ban—Viramontes wants an AR-15-style rifle for self-defense, and Khaya wants an IMI Galil semiautomatic rifle. Because the law bars them from doing so, they joined with two gun-rights organizations, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. and Second Amendment Foundation, and sued Cook County, arguing that the ban violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Viramontes and Khaya filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in August 2021. After the district court granted summary judgment to Cook County in March 2024, petitioners appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which affirmed in a summary order in June 2025. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari and consolidated this case with a related case for one hour of oral argument.
The nine
Each justice's predicted vote and the record behind it: how often they have voted for the petitioner overall, in Civil Rights cases, and when the lower court ruled liberal; and, once argued, how many questions they put to each side (the side a justice questions more tends to lose their vote). The note under each row is the AI brief's reading, commentary rather than model input.
| Justice | Predicted | Overall | This issue | Lower court liberal | At argument |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
John G. Roberts Republican appointee · since OT2005 Chief Justice Roberts has generally supported Second Amendment rights, as seen in his concurrence in *McDonald v. City of Chicago*, but he also tends to favor judicial restraint and deference to legislative bodies when possible. | 66% Viramontes | 68% for the petitioner · 1,512 votes | 70% Civil Rights · 248 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 730 votes | not yet argued |
Clarence Thomas Republican appointee · since OT1991 Justice Thomas is a strong proponent of an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment, often advocating for a historical understanding of its protections, as evidenced by his majority opinion in *New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen*. | 68% Viramontes | 59% for the petitioner · 2,801 votes | 57% Civil Rights · 464 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 1,344 votes | not yet argued |
Samuel A. Alito Republican appointee · since OT2005 Justice Alito authored the majority opinion in *McDonald v. City of Chicago*, which incorporated the Second Amendment against the states, indicating a strong inclination to protect gun rights. | 68% Viramontes | 62% for the petitioner · 1,469 votes | 65% Civil Rights · 244 votes | 79% lower court liberal · 699 votes | not yet argued |
Sonia Sotomayor Democratic appointee · since OT2009 Justice Sotomayor has generally dissented in cases expanding Second Amendment rights, often emphasizing the importance of public safety and the ability of states to regulate firearms. | 51% Viramontes | 61% for the petitioner · 1,192 votes | 61% Civil Rights · 192 votes | 48% lower court liberal · 560 votes | not yet argued |
Elena Kagan Democratic appointee · since OT2010 Justice Kagan has consistently joined dissents in cases that expand Second Amendment rights, often aligning with a view that allows for significant government regulation of firearms. | 51% Viramontes | 63% for the petitioner · 1,072 votes | 60% Civil Rights · 171 votes | 51% lower court liberal · 495 votes | not yet argued |
Neil M. Gorsuch Republican appointee · since OT2016 Justice Gorsuch generally adheres to originalist and textualist interpretations, which in Second Amendment cases has often led him to support individual gun rights, consistent with his vote in *Bruen*. | 66% Viramontes | 65% for the petitioner · 592 votes | 70% Civil Rights · 99 votes | 75% lower court liberal · 278 votes | not yet argued |
Brett M. Kavanaugh Republican appointee · since OT2018 Justice Kavanaugh has shown a tendency to protect Second Amendment rights, often aligning with the conservative wing of the Court in gun rights cases, as seen in his concurrence in *Bruen*. | 66% Viramontes | 69% for the petitioner · 498 votes | 64% Civil Rights · 83 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 235 votes | not yet argued |
Amy Coney Barrett Republican appointee · since OT2020 Justice Barrett's jurisprudence often emphasizes originalism and textualism, and her past writings and votes suggest a strong inclination to protect Second Amendment rights. | 66% Viramontes | 66% for the petitioner · 360 votes | 72% Civil Rights · 61 votes | 76% lower court liberal · 168 votes | not yet argued |
Ketanji Brown Jackson Democratic appointee · since OT2022 Justice Jackson's jurisprudence is still developing on Second Amendment issues, but her general approach to constitutional interpretation often considers the practical impacts of laws and the balance of rights and government interests. | 57% Viramontes | 59% for the petitioner · 244 votes | 47% Civil Rights · 38 votes | 38% lower court liberal · 108 votes | not yet argued |
Rates are each justice's own participation record in the Supreme Court Database, the same history the model trains on; a rate on fewer than five votes is not shown. The predicted vote is VotePredictor SCOTUS' per-justice probability from the served model, which also reads the bench-wide transcript signal and how long each side held the podium.
Every call this term, justice by justice · how the model is built and its record. Data as of 2026-10-02.