Why Snopes v. Brown Matters to Californians

On August 21, 2024, a petition for certiorari was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Snope v. Brown (No. 24-203), challenging the Fourth Circuit’s en banc decision in Bianchi v. Brown, 111 F.4th 438 (4th Cir. 2024), which upheld Maryland’s assault weapons ban. This case emerges in the wake of Duncan v. Bonta (9th Cir. 2025), where the Ninth Circuit misapplied New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022) to uphold California’s large-capacity magazine ban. Snope v. Brown offers the Supreme Court a critical opportunity to clarify Bruen’s Second Amendment framework, address Duncan’s flawed reasoning—such as its arbitrary “arms vs. accessory” distinction and diluted historical analysis—and reaffirm protections for commonly used firearms and their components.

Overview of Snope v. Brown

• Case Name: Snope v. Brown (formerly Bianchi v. Brown)
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court (petition for writ of certiorari pending)
• Docket Number: 24-203
• Issue: Challenges Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act of 2013, which bans certain semiautomatic rifles, commonly referred to as “assault weapons” (e.g., AR-15s), and restricts magazines exceeding 10 rounds. The case questions whether the Constitution permits Maryland to ban semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in America, under the Second Amendment as interpreted in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022).
• Parties:
  • Petitioners: Dominic Bianchi, David Snope, Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, and other gun rights organizations and individuals.
  • Respondent: Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown.
• Lower Courts:
  • District Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (case no. 1:20-cv-03495) rejected the challenge, upholding the ban.
• 4th Circuit: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (case no. 21-1255) affirmed the ban in an en banc decision on August 6, 2024, by a 10-5 vote, finding it constitutional.

Procedural History

Initial Filing (2020):

• The lawsuit was filed on December 1, 2020, by the Firearms Policy Coalition and others, challenging Maryland’s ban as unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The Second Amendment Foundation joined the suit in 2021.
• The district court upheld the ban, relying on prior 4th Circuit precedent (Kolbe v. Hogan, 2017) that found no fundamental right to possess military-style weapons.

Pre-Bruen Appeal (2021–2022):

• The case was appealed to the 4th Circuit, which placed it on hold pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen (2022).
• On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court granted, vacated, and remanded (GVR) Snope v. Brown (then Bianchi v. Frosh, Supreme Court case nos. 21-902, 23-863) to the 4th Circuit for reconsideration in light of Bruen, which established that gun regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, rejecting interest-balancing tests.

4th Circuit En Banc Ruling (2024):

• After remand, the 4th Circuit took the unusual step of scheduling en banc review before a three-judge panel ruling, delaying proceedings for over a year.
• On August 6, 2024, the 4th Circuit upheld Maryland’s ban by a 10-5 vote. The majority argued that the banned rifles are “dangerous and unusual” and not protected by the Second Amendment, relying on public safety concerns and a narrow interpretation of Bruen.
• The dissent, led by Judge Julius N. Richardson, criticized the majority for ignoring Bruen’s historical test and the Second Amendment’s anti-tyranny purpose. It cited 19th-century state cases protecting small arms useful for warfare, arguing that AR-15s are clearly “arms” under Heller (2008) and Bruen.

Supreme Court Petition (2024–Present):

• On August 23, 2024, petitioners filed for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the 4th Circuit’s ruling defies Bruen and Heller.
• Maryland sought extensions to file its response, initially due October 23, 2024. The Supreme Court granted a partial extension to November 12, 2024, after petitioners opposed a longer delay to ensure a potential ruling by June 2025.
• The case was distributed for the Supreme Court’s conference on January 10, 2025, and has been relisted multiple times (at least 11 conferences, including January 17, April 4, and April 17, 2025), indicating ongoing consideration without a decision to grant or deny certiorari.

Key Legal Arguments

• Petitioners’ Arguments:
  • Common Use: Semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 are among the most popular firearms in the U.S., with millions owned for lawful purposes (e.g., self-defense, hunting, sport shooting). Heller (2008) protects firearms “in common use” for lawful purposes, and bans on such arms are unconstitutional.
  • Bruen Violation: The 4th Circuit’s reliance on interest-balancing (public safety concerns) violates Bruen’s mandate that restrictions must be justified by historical analogues from the Founding or Reconstruction eras. No such tradition exists for banning commonly used rifles.
  • Circuit Splits: The 4th Circuit’s ruling exacerbates a “Two Second Amendments” problem, where gun rights vary by circuit. For example, the 5th and 8th Circuits have struck down certain restrictions post-Bruen, while the 4th and 9th Circuits uphold them, necessitating Supreme Court clarification.
  • Scope of “Arms”: The Second Amendment protects all “arms” used for lawful purposes, not just those optimal for self-defense. The amendment’s militia purpose supports protecting rifles suitable for common defense, contrary to the 4th Circuit’s focus on military-style features.
• Maryland’s Arguments:
  • Dangerous and Unusual: The banned rifles are “dangerous and unusual” due to their military-style features (e.g., detachable magazines, pistol grips), removing them from Second Amendment protection under Heller’s dicta.
  • Public Safety: The ban addresses mass shootings (e.g., Sandy Hook, 2012), a compelling state interest. Maryland argues that Bruen allows some restrictions, especially for weapons linked to heightened lethality.
  • Premature Review: Lower courts are still interpreting Bruen’s application to assault weapon bans. Maryland contends that Supreme Court intervention is premature until more circuits weigh in, avoiding a rush to judgment.
  • Historical Analogues: Maryland cites historical laws restricting dangerous weapons (e.g., Bowie knives) as analogues, though critics argue these are not comparable to banning a class of commonly owned firearms.

Potential Impact

Snope v. Brown has significant implications for Second Amendment law and firearm regulations nationwide, particularly given its focus on “assault weapon” bans, which affect millions of gun owners. Below are the potential impacts:

Clarification of Bruen’s Application:

• A Supreme Court ruling could resolve confusion among lower courts about Bruen’s text-and-history test. The 4th Circuit’s reliance on interest-balancing in Snope mirrors similar rulings in the 9th Circuit (e.g., Duncan v. Bonta), suggesting some courts are sidestepping Bruen. A decision could reinforce that only historical analogues, not public safety arguments, justify restrictions.
• The Court might clarify whether Bruen is a one-step test (text and history) or if courts are improperly creating a new two-step analysis (e.g., assessing “need” for certain firearms), as petitioners argue.

Fate of Assault Weapon Bans:

• Eleven states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Washington) and the District of Columbia have assault weapon bans, often targeting semiautomatic rifles with specific features. A ruling striking down Maryland’s ban could invalidate these laws, expanding access to AR-15s and similar rifles.
• Conversely, upholding the ban could embolden states to enact or expand similar restrictions, potentially reducing the availability of semiautomatic rifles. This could also affect magazine capacity laws, as Maryland’s ban includes a 10-round limit, a feature challenged in related cases like Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island.

Resolution of Circuit Splits:

• The case could address the “Two Second Amendments” problem, where gun rights vary by region. For example, the 5th Circuit has struck down restrictions on felons and drug users (U.S. v. Daniels), while the 4th and 9th Circuits uphold stringent laws. A ruling could standardize Second Amendment interpretation, ensuring consistent rights across circuits.

Scope of Protected “Arms”:

• A decision could define the scope of “arms” under the Second Amendment, particularly whether rifles with military-style features are protected. Petitioners argue that Heller and Bruen protect all commonly used firearms, while Maryland contends that military-style rifles fall outside this category. The outcome could affect future challenges to bans on other firearms or accessories (e.g., suppressors in Sanchez v. Bonta).

Militia and Anti-Tyranny Purpose:

• The dissent in the 4th Circuit emphasized the Second Amendment’s anti-tyranny roots, citing its role in ensuring citizens can resist oppression. A Supreme Court ruling could affirm or reject this purpose, influencing debates over the amendment’s militia clause and the legality of banning rifles suitable for collective defense.

Broader Policy Implications:

• A pro-Second Amendment ruling could deter states from passing restrictive gun laws, fearing legal challenges. Conversely, a ruling upholding the ban might encourage blue states to strengthen gun control, potentially escalating tensions in the national gun debate.
• The case’s outcome could influence public safety policies, as Maryland and groups like Everytown for Gun Safety argue that assault weapon bans reduce mass shootings, while petitioners counter that such bans disarm law-abiding citizens, leaving them vulnerable (e.g., during crises like the 2024 Los Angeles wildfires).

Why We Are Currently Waiting

The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to grant or deny certiorari in Snope v. Brown, leading to the current delay. Here are the reasons for this, based on the case’s status and Supreme Court practices:

Multiple Relists:

• Snope v. Brown has been relisted at least 11 times since January 10, 2025, with the most recent conference on April 17, 2025, as you noted in our prior conversation. Relisting occurs when the Court defers a decision on a petition, often to allow justices more time to review the case, draft opinions, or negotiate votes.
• Relists are common for significant cases, as seen with Bruen (relisted four times) and Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (relisted 16 times). The repeated relists suggest the Court is seriously considering Snope but may be grappling with its scope, timing, or alignment with other pending cases.

Strategic Timing:

• The Supreme Court’s term runs from October to June, with certiorari decisions typically made by mid-to-late May to allow arguments and a ruling within the same term. As you asked on April 18, 2025, the practical deadline for Snope to be accepted this term is likely mid-to-late May 2025 (e.g., the May 29 conference). If not granted by then, the case may be held for the October 2025 term.
• The Court may be waiting to ensure sufficient time for briefing, arguments, and a decision, especially given the case’s complexity. A late grant (e.g., June 2025) could push arguments to the next term, delaying a ruling until 2026.

Coordination with Other Cases:

• Snope v. Brown is one of two relisted Second Amendment cases, alongside Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island (challenging a magazine ban). The Court may be deciding which case—or both—to hear, as they address related issues (bans on rifles vs. magazines). The justices rescheduled these cases for the same conference in January 2025, indicating a coordinated review.
• The Court denied certiorari in other Second Amendment cases (e.g., Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. v. Moore and Gray v. Jennings) in January 2025, suggesting it may prefer Snope as the best vehicle to address assault weapon bans due to its final judgment posture (unlike Gray, which involved a preliminary injunction).

Internal Deliberations:

• The justices may be debating the case’s scope or the votes needed for certiorari (four justices must agree to grant). Chief Justice John Roberts, described as a potential swing vote on Second Amendment issues, may be influencing the timeline, as suggested by his decision to limit Maryland’s response extension in November 2024.
• The absence of a dissent in related denials (e.g., Maryland Shall Issue) has raised speculation that Justice Clarence Thomas, a strong Second Amendment advocate, may be withholding dissent to signal confidence in Snope’s eventual grant.

Lower Court Developments:

• Maryland argued that Supreme Court review is premature because lower courts are still applying Bruen to assault weapon bans, with few other circuits ruling on similar laws. The Court may be waiting for additional circuit decisions (e.g., Miller v. Bonta in the 9th Circuit) to clarify the extent of circuit splits, though Snope’s relists suggest the justices see it as ripe for review.

Why the Case Matters to Californians

• Set a national precedent affecting California’s laws.
• Clarify Bruen’s historical test, which you’ve explored in legal contexts.
• Influence the 9th Circuit’s handling of Miller and Duncan.

Conclusion

Snope v. Brown is a pivotal Second Amendment case that could reshape the legality of assault weapon bans across the U.S., impacting millions of gun owners and state policies. Its potential to clarify Bruen, resolve circuit splits, and define the scope of protected “arms” makes it a landmark opportunity for the Supreme Court. The current delay stems from repeated relists, reflecting the Court’s careful consideration of the case’s complexity and timing. With a decision on certiorari likely imminent (by May 2025), Snope remains a focal point for gun rights advocates, especially in light of your interest in related cases like Miller v. Bonta.