My Early Prediction in Viramontes / Grant

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on December 2, 2026, in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins. The consolidated cases ask whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess AR-15-platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.

I thought it would be interesting to put my prediction in writing before oral arguments, then revisit it after hearing the justices’ questions and again after the Court issues its decision.

My prediction as of October 27, 2026

The question I am predicting is whether the justices will find the challenged rifle bans constitutional.

Justice	My current prediction
Sonia Sotomayor	Ban is constitutional
Clarence Thomas	Ban is unconstitutional
John Roberts	Leans toward ban being unconstitutional
Samuel Alito	Ban is unconstitutional
Elena Kagan	Ban is constitutional
Amy Coney Barrett	Leans toward ban being unconstitutional
Neil Gorsuch	Ban is unconstitutional
Brett Kavanaugh	Ban is unconstitutional
Ketanji Brown Jackson	Ban is constitutional

That gives me six justices I expect to find the bans unconstitutional and three I expect to uphold them.

My prediction is a 6–3 decision striking down the bans, although I am less certain about Roberts and Barrett than I am about the other four justices I expect to join that result.

Why I think common use matters

The Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller discussed protection for arms commonly used for lawful purposes. AR-15-style rifles are widely owned by Americans for lawful purposes, including self-defense, sporting use, and recreation.

I question whether “common use” should be a requirement for constitutional protection in the first place. The Second Amendment does not say that the right applies only to popular arms. But Heller is existing precedent, and I believe common use presents a substantial obstacle to the governments defending these bans.

What I will be watching during oral arguments

My biggest questions concern Roberts and Barrett. I’ll be listening for how they approach Heller, the rifles’ widespread lawful ownership, and the governments’ arguments for distinguishing these rifles from other protected firearms.

I’ll also be interested in whether any justice focuses on the difference between the rifles themselves and restrictions on magazine capacity. Magazine capacity appears in the discussion of these cases, but the separate magazine-capacity bans are not being challenged here.

Of course, questions at oral argument don’t always reveal how a justice will ultimately vote. A justice may ask difficult questions of a lawyer whose position they ultimately support, or test an argument they haven’t yet decided.

Revisit after oral argument—and after the ruling

Once the arguments are complete, I plan to revisit this prediction and see whether anything I heard changes my expectations.

Then, when the Court issues its decision, I’ll compare the actual votes with this original prediction—and see whether my instincts about Roberts and Barrett were right.

For now, my scorecard is on the record. Let’s see how well it ages. 🙂