Why South Dakota Should Be Watching the Supreme Court’s Next Big Second Amendment Case

There is a case going before the Supreme Court soon that may interest South Dakotans.

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear these cases is one of the most significant Second Amendment developments since its decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). Rather than deciding the issue immediately, the Court has agreed to review whether state and local bans on AR-15-style semiautomatic rifles are constitutional.

The Cases

The Court granted review in two consolidated cases:

• Viramontes v. Cook County — challenges Cook County, Illinois’ prohibition on AR-15-style rifles and similar firearms.
• Grant v. Higgins — challenges Connecticut’s assault weapons law, originally enacted in 1993 and significantly expanded after the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting.

Because both cases present essentially the same constitutional question, the Court will hear them together.

The Core Question

The justices will decide: Does the Second Amendment protect the possession of commonly owned semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15, making state and local bans unconstitutional?

This will likely require the Court to apply the historical-tradition test established in Bruen, which asks whether modern firearm regulations are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The Competing Arguments

The challengers argue:

• AR-15s are among the most commonly owned rifles in America.
• They are used for lawful purposes including self-defense, sport shooting, and hunting.
• Under Heller, firearms “in common use” by law-abiding citizens are protected.
• There is no historical tradition of banning an entire class of commonly possessed firearms.

Illinois and Connecticut argue:

• These rifles are unusually dangerous because of their military-style features and their use in many high-profile mass shootings.
• Governments have long had authority to regulate especially dangerous weapons.
• The laws are intended to reduce casualties from mass shootings while leaving citizens with many other firearms for self-defense.

Why This Is So Important

A Supreme Court ruling will affect far more than Illinois and Connecticut. Currently, assault weapon bans exist in roughly a dozen states and the District of Columbia. A ruling striking down these bans could invalidate similar laws across the country, including those in California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, Washington, Hawaii, Delaware, and others.

Conversely, if the Court upholds the bans, it would provide strong constitutional support for states that choose to enact or maintain similar restrictions.

Timing

• Fall 2026: Oral arguments.
• Late June or early July 2027: Decision expected before the Court recesses for the summer.

What to Watch During Oral Arguments

• Are AR-15-style rifles “arms” protected by the Second Amendment?
• Are they in “common use” by law-abiding Americans?
• Does history support banning an entire category of firearms?
• Can governments distinguish between semiautomatic rifles based on cosmetic or functional features?
• What historical analogues satisfy the Bruen test?

Possible Outcomes

• Strike down the bans (broad Second Amendment ruling) — The Court could hold that commonly owned semiautomatic rifles are protected arms, invalidating similar bans nationwide.
• Uphold the bans — The Court could conclude that assault weapon prohibitions fit within the historical tradition of regulating particularly dangerous weapons.
• Issue a narrower ruling — The Court might send the cases back to lower courts with additional guidance on how to apply the Bruen framework rather than resolving every question itself.

This case is widely viewed as the first time the Supreme Court will directly address whether bans on AR-15-style rifles are compatible with the Second Amendment, making it one of the most consequential firearms cases in decades.

South Dakota has consistently been strongly opposed to bans on AR-15-style rifles and similar semiautomatic firearms, both as a matter of state law and through litigation involving other states. Here’s the state’s position over the past several years:

1. South Dakota Has Never Enacted an “Assault Weapon” Ban

Unlike Illinois, Connecticut, California, New York, and several other states, South Dakota has no prohibition on owning AR-15-style rifles or similar semiautomatic firearms. In fact, the Legislature has generally moved in the opposite direction by expanding firearm protections and limiting state and local regulation. For example:

• Constitutional Carry (2019)
• State preemption of local firearm regulations
• Expanded protections for firearm owners
• 2026 removal of state restrictions on suppressors (while federal law still applies)

2. State Law Prevents Local Governments from Creating Their Own Bans

South Dakota doesn’t simply lack a statewide ban—it also prohibits counties from adopting their own firearm prohibitions. State law provides that counties may not restrict or prohibit possession, ownership, purchase, sale, transportation, manufacture, or repair of firearms or ammunition, and it directs the Attorney General to seek an injunction if a county violates that law. This means a county such as Minnehaha or Pennington could not enact a Cook County-style “assault weapon” ban on its own.

3. Attorney General Marty Jackley Has Actively Opposed Assault Weapon Bans

South Dakota has also participated in national litigation. In September 2024, Attorney General Marty Jackley joined an all-Republican coalition of attorneys general — led by Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador and including 25 other states, along with the Arizona and Wisconsin state legislatures — in an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up Snope v. Brown, a challenge to Maryland’s assault weapons ban. The brief argued that firearms such as the AR-15 are “bearable arms” protected under the Supreme Court’s Heller and Bruen decisions and should not be prohibited simply because they are commonly owned semiautomatic rifles.

The Court ultimately declined to hear that case in 2025, but Justice Kavanaugh wrote separately that the Court “should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon” — a prediction that came true with the June 2026 grant in Viramontes and Grant.

4. Governor Larry Rhoden Has Emphasized South Dakota’s Pro-Second Amendment Position

Although the suppressor legislation (SB 2) was not about AR-15s specifically, Governor Rhoden has repeatedly described South Dakota as “the most Second Amendment-friendly state in America.” His administration has framed recent firearm legislation as protecting constitutional rights rather than expanding regulation.

How South Dakota Is Likely to View the Current Supreme Court Case

While the state is not a party to the Illinois/Connecticut consolidated cases, South Dakota’s recent actions strongly suggest it would support the challengers seeking to overturn those bans. Based on existing South Dakota law, Attorney General Jackley’s prior amicus effort, Governor Rhoden’s public statements, and the Legislature’s long-standing direction on firearm policy, South Dakota’s legal position has consistently been that commonly owned semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15 fall within the protections of the Second Amendment, and that broad prohibitions on those firearms are unconstitutional.

If the Supreme Court ultimately strikes down Illinois’ and Connecticut’s bans, the decision would largely align with South Dakota’s existing policy. Conversely, if the Court upholds those bans, South Dakota would not be required to adopt similar restrictions, but the decision would establish that states choosing to enact such bans may do so consistent with the federal Constitution.