US Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Gun Rights Cases

The Supreme Court's recent "mop-up" conference for the 2025-26 term saw the Court address a limited number of relisted petitions, notably those concerning Second Amendment challenges to age-based firearm restrictions. Following its landmark decision in *United States v. Hemani*, which found the federal prohibition on firearm possession by unlawful marijuana users unconstitutional, the Court declined to grant certiorari in several cases challenging laws restricting firearm access for individuals aged 18 to 20. This decision leaves a significant circuit split unresolved, creating varied legal landscapes across the country regarding the Second Amendment rights of young adults. While some lower court rulings upholding age restrictions were left undisturbed, a Third Circuit decision striking down Pennsylvania's emergency-based carry ban for this age group was allowed to stand, signaling a complex and evolving area of gun rights jurisprudence.

As the Supreme Court concluded its 2025-26 term, its final "mop-up" conference, typically a rapid-fire session to clear remaining relisted petitions, brought a series of critical decisions, particularly in the contentious realm of Second Amendment rights. This year's conference was closely watched for how the Court would address a cluster of gun cases held pending its recent ruling in *United States v. Hemani*. The *Hemani* decision, which invalidated a federal prohibition on firearm possession for unlawful marijuana users, set a new precedent for applying the Second Amendment's "historical tradition" test established in *New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen*.

The Court's subsequent actions on petitions challenging age-based firearm restrictions for individuals between 18 and 20 years old have significant implications for gun rights advocacy and regulatory efforts nationwide. By largely declining to intervene in these cases, the Supreme Court has left a pronounced circuit split intact, ensuring that the constitutionality of such restrictions will continue to be litigated and vary by jurisdiction. This article delves into the Court's decisions at its final conference, examining the impact of *Hemani* and the unresolved questions surrounding the Second Amendment rights of young adults.

The Supreme Court's certiorari process involves a series of private conferences where justices decide which cases to hear. A "relist" occurs when the justices neither grant nor deny a petition for certiorari but instead defer it for additional consideration at a subsequent conference, often indicating internal deliberation or a desire to await a related decision. The "mop-up" conference is a customary end-of-term gathering where the Court disposes of all remaining relisted cases before its summer recess. These conferences are crucial, as they often finalize the Court's docket for the upcoming term or signal its stance on emerging legal issues by granting or denying review.

Modern Second Amendment jurisprudence is anchored by a trilogy of landmark cases. In *District of Columbia v. Heller*, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court recognized an individual's right to possess firearms for self-defense in the home. Two years later, *McDonald v. City of Chicago*, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), incorporated this right against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Most recently, *New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen*, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), established a new standard for evaluating firearm regulations, requiring the government to demonstrate that a regulation is "consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation." This historical tradition test became central to the Court's analysis in *United States v. Hemani*, No. 24-1234 (2026), where the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits unlawful users of controlled substances from possessing firearms, was unconstitutional as applied to an individual who used marijuana but was not alleged to be dangerous. The *Hemani* decision emphasized that the government bears the burden of showing a historical analogue for modern gun restrictions.

The Supreme Court's disposition of the relisted gun cases at its final conference underscored the ongoing judicial struggle to apply the *Bruen* framework, particularly concerning age-based restrictions. Several petitions, including *National Rifle Association v. Glass*, *McCoy v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives*, *West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives*, *Bivens v. Second Amendment Foundation*, and *Picon v. United States*, had been held for the *Hemani* decision, all raising questions about the constitutionality of laws prohibiting individuals under 21 from possessing or purchasing firearms.

In a significant move, the Court denied certiorari in *National Rifle Association v. Glass*, a challenge to Florida's ban on firearm purchases by adults under 21. This denial leaves intact the Eleventh Circuit's en banc decision upholding the Florida law, which found the restriction consistent with historical tradition. Similarly, the Court denied cert in *McCoy v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives*, where the Fourth Circuit had upheld federal restrictions on handgun sales to 18-to-20-year-olds, reasoning that common-law principles historically burdened this age group's ability to acquire firearms. These denials, particularly in light of the *Bruen* test, suggest that some age-based restrictions may find support in historical analogues, even if the application of that historical test remains highly contested among lower courts.

However, the Court's actions were not uniform. In *Bivens v. Second Amendment Foundation* (formerly *Lara v. Paris*), the Supreme Court declined to review a Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that found Pennsylvania's laws banning 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying firearms in public during a declared state of emergency violated the Second Amendment. By letting this decision stand, the Court effectively affirmed the Third Circuit's conclusion that young adults are part of "the people" protected by the Second Amendment and are entitled to carry firearms, at least in the context of emergency declarations. This creates a clear circuit split, as the Third, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits have generally held that 18-to-20-year-olds possess Second Amendment rights, while the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits have upheld certain age-based restrictions.

The unresolved circuit split highlights the interpretive challenges of the *Bruen* framework. While *Hemani* clarified that the government must demonstrate a historical tradition of firearm regulation to justify modern restrictions, the application of this test to specific categories of individuals, such as young adults, remains highly contentious. The historical record regarding the contractual capacity and firearm access of individuals under 21 at the Founding era is subject to varying interpretations, leading to divergent outcomes in lower courts. The Supreme Court's decision not to resolve this split in the current term means that the legal landscape for young adults' Second Amendment rights will continue to be fragmented, with different rules applying depending on the jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court's final actions of the 2025-26 term, particularly its handling of Second Amendment challenges to age-based firearm restrictions, underscore a period of significant, yet still developing, jurisprudence in this area. While *United States v. Hemani* provided clarity on the application of the *Bruen* historical tradition test to certain prohibited persons, the Court's subsequent denials of certiorari in cases like *NRA v. Glass* and *McCoy v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives* leave a pronounced circuit split unresolved regarding the Second Amendment rights of 18-to-20-year-olds. This means that the constitutionality of laws restricting firearm access for young adults will continue to be litigated, with outcomes varying significantly across federal circuits.

For practitioners, this fragmented legal landscape necessitates careful attention to the specific precedents within their respective circuits. The Third Circuit's ruling in *Bivens v. Second Amendment Foundation*, which the Supreme Court allowed to stand, affirms the right of young adults to carry firearms in public in Pennsylvania under certain circumstances, offering a potential blueprint for challenges in other jurisdictions that fall within circuits sympathetic to broader Second Amendment interpretations. Conversely, attorneys in circuits that have upheld age restrictions must continue to navigate those precedents. The ongoing divergence among appellate courts suggests that the Supreme Court may eventually be compelled to revisit this issue to provide a uniform national standard, but for now, the battle over the Second Amendment rights of young adults will continue to unfold in the lower courts, guided by the evolving interpretation of historical tradition.