Supreme Court of the United States has relisted the NAGR v Lamont AWB/LCM challenge to February 20th, 2026 conference day.
Jan 28 2026 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/20/2026.
Time will tell if the justices will grant cert to the NAGR petition.
The petition: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-421/378584/20251003105339425_25-%20Petition.pdf
The question presented is:
Whether a ban on the possession of AR-15-style rifles and firearm magazines with a capacity in excess of ten rounds—both of which are possessed by millions of law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes—violates the Second Amendment.
Case apparently not mentioned in todays SCOTUS orders list:: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022326zor_7758.pdf
Assuming the case is relisted the next conference day is Feb 27th.
NAGR v. Lamont - No. 25-421 (AWB/Mag ban)
SCOTUS Orders of the Court
NAGR relisted to March 6th, with orders list expected on Monday, March 9th.
NAGR files a supplemental brief in the wake of the DC’s Hanson v. District of Columbia magazine ban opinion. NAGR v. Lamont, challenging CT’s AWB and magazine ban, along with the four other 2A cases were relisted to Friday, March 20th, SCOTUS Conference Day. Typically the orders list from the conference will be released the following Monday at 9:30am.
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS
Petitioners respectfully submit this supplemental brief to bring to the Court’s attention Benson v. United States, No. 23-CF-0514, 2026 WL628772 (D.C. Mar. 5, 2026). On March 5, 2026, the D.C. Court of Appeals, the District’s court of last resort, held that the District of Columbia’s ban on firearm magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition (“11+ magazines”) violates the Second Amendment. In so holding, the court expressly parted ways with the decision below, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Duncan v. Bonta, 133 F.4th 852 (9th Cir. 2025), and the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Hanson v. District of Columbia, 120 F.4th 223 (D.C. Cir. 2024), which had upheld the same D.C. law. Benson creates an irreconcilable split on the ultimate question presented and on every relevant underlying issue. This Court’s review is now plainly warranted.
(See the brief’s link for entire brief.)