Supreme Court Declines to Hear Appeals on Gun Regulations in Delaware and Maryland

The United States Supreme Court has opted not to take up two significant appeals related to state-level gun regulations. The cases in question challenged Delaware’s ban on assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines, as well as Maryland’s handgun licensing laws. By declining to hear these appeals, the Court allows the lower court rulings to stand without setting a national precedent.

Delaware’s Ban on Certain Firearms and Magazines

In Delaware, a law passed in 2022 prohibits the sale of certain semi-automatic rifles often referred to as “assault weapons,” such as the AR-15 and AK-47, along with ammunition magazines that hold more than 17 rounds. The law permits individuals who already owned these firearms and magazines prior to the law’s enactment to keep them, provided they follow specific guidelines.

A group of plaintiffs, including local gun owners, a firearm dealer, and national gun rights organizations, sought to block the enforcement of this law. They argued that such restrictions infringe upon their rights under the Second Amendment. Their request for a preliminary injunction to halt the enforcement of the law was denied by a federal judge in 2023. That decision was upheld by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024.

In its ruling, the appeals court stated that injunctions are meant for extraordinary circumstances and that the Delaware case did not meet that standard. According to the court, although the plaintiffs expressed concern about a constitutional issue, their claims alone were not enough to justify emergency intervention.

Maryland’s Handgun Licensing Requirement

The second case involved a challenge to Maryland’s handgun purchase requirements. A law enacted in the state in 2013 requires most individuals seeking to buy a handgun to first obtain a license. This licensing process includes fingerprinting, completing a certified training course, and undergoing a background check.

Opponents of the law argued that it places unnecessary delays and burdens on individuals seeking to exercise their rights to firearm ownership. The licensing process, they claimed, can take a month or more, potentially discouraging some from proceeding altogether.

However, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law, finding that the public safety benefits—such as enhanced vetting and safety education—outweighed the claimed inconvenience. The court determined that the law remained within constitutional boundaries and served a legitimate state interest.

By not taking up the case, the Supreme Court effectively allows Maryland’s licensing law to remain in place without challenge at the federal level.

Other Gun Cases Still Pending

While the Supreme Court has declined to hear these two cases, it has not yet acted on similar appeals, including those concerning Maryland’s broader assault weapon restrictions and a Rhode Island case related to magazine capacity limits. These may still be taken up in the future, though the Court’s recent decisions suggest a cautious approach to revisiting firearm regulations.

Earlier in the year, the justices heard arguments in a separate case involving a federal regulation targeting “ghost guns.” These are untraceable firearms that can be assembled from kits and do not have serial numbers. A ruling on that matter is expected by June.

Additionally, the Court is scheduled to hear a case on March 4 involving a lawsuit filed by the Mexican government. That suit seeks to hold U.S.-based firearm manufacturers accountable for their alleged role in the illegal flow of weapons to criminal organizations across the southern border. The outcome of that case could influence how gunmakers are held liable in international legal contexts.

Context and Legal Landscape

Over the past several years, the Supreme Court has ruled on multiple cases that define the scope of the Second Amendment. Landmark decisions in 2008, 2010, and more recently in 2022 have shaped the legal framework around firearm ownership and regulation in the U.S.

Despite having a majority that often interprets the Constitution through an originalist lens, the Court appears to be selective in the cases it chooses to hear, particularly when it comes to state-specific laws that do not create clear conflicts between circuit courts.

This cautious approach suggests that the justices may be waiting for a more definitive legal conflict—or one with broader national implications—before intervening in state-level gun control measures.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision not to take up the appeals related to gun laws in Delaware and Maryland leaves the existing restrictions in place, at least for now. As legal challenges to gun regulations continue to unfold across the country, these decisions highlight the balance between individual rights and public safety that courts are often asked to navigate.

While the broader debate over firearms and regulation continues in legislatures and communities, the nation’s highest court has—for the time being—chosen to observe rather than intervene.