Trump just put his name publicly behind taking AR-15 bans to the Supreme Court and winning. Harmeet Dhillon's DOJ Civil Rights Division filed suit against…
The bottom line
Trump just put his name publicly behind taking AR-15 bans to the Supreme Court and winning. Harmeet Dhillon’s DOJ Civil Rights Division filed suit against Denver’s 37-year assault weapons ban on May 5, 2026, and Dhillon says that’s the first domino. The White House is aligned, the DOJ is staffed up, and for the first time in American history the federal government is treating the Second Amendment like a civil right worth enforcing.
This article is based on analysis from Bearing Freedom. Watch the original video. This is commentary, not legal advice.
What Trump actually said
On May 6, 2026, President Trump took to Truth Social to share and endorse a Just the News piece reporting that the DOJ’s top civil rights lawyers believe their new lawsuit against Denver will “soon lead to a Supreme Court decision legalizing the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle.”
That’s not a random campaign rally line. That’s the sitting president of the United States, with the Justice Department machinery now aligned behind him, publicly committing to the idea that AR-15 bans should be gone everywhere in America. He didn’t hedge. He didn’t soft-pedal it. He signal-boosted a story saying this is where it’s going.
Dhillon and Blanche are not loose cannons. They’re not the kind of officials who go on record predicting Supreme Court victories unless they have real institutional backing. When the acting attorney general is going to gun events and publicly cheering on his AAG for civil rights as she sues a major American city over its rifle ban, you’re watching a different DOJ than we’ve ever had.
The strategy Dhillon is running
Harmeet Dhillon has been the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division since 2025. She announced the creation of a dedicated Second Amendment Section within her office in December 2025, with roughly 50 attorneys focused specifically on Second Amendment litigation. In interviews given in May 2026, Dhillon laid out the plan with unusual candor: force a circuit split on the AR-15 question, then let the Supreme Court resolve it.
She called state assault weapons bans “low-hanging fruit.” Her reasoning is straightforward and, frankly, airtight. Last June, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos and stated plainly that “the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country.” Americans own somewhere between 20 and 30 million of them. That puts the rifle squarely inside the Heller definition of common use, the exact constitutional test the Court established in 2008 for whether a firearm class is protected under the Second Amendment. You cannot honestly argue that a weapon owned by tens of millions of law-abiding Americans is not “in common use for lawful purposes.”
The Fourth Circuit has bad precedent on this. The DOJ knows it. Dhillon’s plan is to generate good precedent in other circuits so the Supreme Court has the circuit conflict it typically requires before granting cert on a constitutional question of this magnitude.
The Denver lawsuit and what it actually means
On May 5, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division filed United States v. City of Denver, a federal lawsuit challenging Denver’s 1989 assault weapons ordinance. That ban, which the city has enforced for 37 years, prohibits possession of AR-15-style semi-automatic rifles within city limits.
Denver Mayor Mike Johnston held a press conference on the steps of City Hall and said “hell no.” The city’s position is that the ordinance has kept “weapons of war off city streets.” I’ve heard that line so many times it doesn’t even land anymore. There’s no evidentiary basis for it. The AR-15 is not a weapon of war. The military uses the M16 and M4, which fire in burst and automatic modes that civilians cannot legally own without going through an extremely restricted and expensive NFA process. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic sporting and defensive rifle. The phrase “weapon of war” is, as Dhillon correctly noted, a politically charged rhetorical term designed to confuse voters, not describe a firearm’s function.
The same day DOJ sued Denver, it filed a second suit against the state of Colorado challenging its 13-year-old ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds. That’s not a coincidence. The DOJ is stacking cases deliberately in the same federal judicial geography, building a litigation record.
Why the White House endorsement is not small
Dhillon serves at the pleasure of the president. We watched Pam Bondi get fired on April 2, 2026, and we know why the 2A community wasn’t exactly weeping. Bondi was not a reliable ally on gun rights. I covered the Bondi firing and the post-Bondi DOJ in detail here, and the picture that emerged was of a DOJ that was either indifferent to or actively dragging its feet on Second Amendment enforcement.
Todd Blanche replaced Bondi as acting AG. Blanche’s pro-2A credibility is real, as I wrote when he took the role here. He attends gun events with Dhillon. He’s given her the institutional support she needs to do aggressive litigation. And now Trump himself has gone on record endorsing the direction they’re taking.
That matters in a way people in the gun rights community can be too cynical to accept. Trump’s Truth Social post wasn’t a throwaway. It’s a statement of political will. If the DOJ is going to fight these cases up through the circuits and all the way to SCOTUS, it needs the White House to stay committed through the inevitable hostile court rulings, media pressure, and political friction that comes when you’re suing blue cities. Trump just told everyone watching that he wants this to happen.
Where SCOTUS actually stands
The Supreme Court has been frustratingly oblique about assault weapons bans for the past several years. In June 2025, the Court declined to hear Snope v. Brown, which challenged Maryland’s assault weapons ban, after relisting the cert petition 13 times. That’s not a great sign on its own, but context matters: Justice Kavanaugh wrote separately in a related matter that he wanted the issue to develop further in lower courts first. That’s exactly the process Dhillon is now accelerating.
Wolford v. Lopez, which challenges Hawaii’s effectively prohibitory concealed carry scheme, was argued before the Court in January 2026, and the six Republican-appointed justices appeared openly sympathetic during oral argument. A decision is expected this summer. That case is about sensitive places and carry licensing, not assault weapons bans directly, but a strong majority opinion applying Bruen’s text-and-history test rigorously will write the precedent that AWB challengers can point to.
Meanwhile, Duncan v. Bonta (California’s magazine ban) has been relisted at SCOTUS multiple times with no action. Grant v. Higgins and National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont challenge Connecticut’s post-Sandy Hook ban and have also been sitting in conference. The Court is clearly waiting. Dhillon’s strategy is to give them something unavoidable to take.
The civil rights framing is intentional
It is no accident that this 2A enforcement effort lives inside the Civil Rights Division rather than, say, the Criminal Division or a standalone DOJ unit. The placement is a deliberate statement about what kind of right the Second Amendment is.
For decades, the Civil Rights Division at DOJ existed primarily to enforce voting rights, employment discrimination law, housing law. The Second Amendment was treated as a separate, lesser, somehow less legitimate species of constitutional right. Heller itself noted that the Second Amendment had long been treated as a “second-class” right by courts and regulators.
Dhillon is making the structural argument that gun rights are civil rights. The federal government no longer just litigates the Second Amendment defensively. It actively sues jurisdictions that violate it, the same way the Civil Rights Division would sue a jurisdiction that systematically denied voting rights. That is a genuine shift in how the federal executive treats the right to bear arms.
What comes next
The Denver lawsuit will move through the Tenth Circuit. Colorado’s magazine ban lawsuit is in the same federal district. The DOJ’s pattern is clear: build an aggressive litigation record in circuits where you can force favorable or split decisions, then present SCOTUS with a conflict it cannot ignore.
Dhillon acknowledged the resource constraint honestly. About 50 attorneys in the Second Amendment Section, working cases that require “massive, complicated, deep legal briefs.” They can’t be everywhere at once. But they’re choosing their cases strategically, and the White House is telling them to go.
I’m not going to sit here and claim this is all going to work out perfectly or that SCOTUS is a sure thing. I’ve watched the gun rights movement get its hopes up too many times only to have the Court punt. What I will say is that the pieces are in place in a way they have never been before. A DOJ that’s suing cities over rifle bans. An acting AG who genuinely supports the cause. A president publicly committed to taking this to the Supreme Court. And a legal foundation built on a 9-0 ruling that literally says the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America.
We’ve never been this close. That doesn’t guarantee anything. But if you’ve been watching this issue for any amount of time, you know this moment is different.
Get the Weekly Briefing
New analysis delivered every week. Court decisions, case updates, and expert commentary.