Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon took an unusual step on Monday by arguing before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging the constitutionality of Illinois‘s sweeping assault weapons ban and rejecting the court’s previous reasoning for upholding the law.
Dhillon, a longtime constitutional litigator and prominent figure in the Trump administration’s Justice Department, spoke for around five minutes during oral arguments in downtown Chicago. She asserted that the federal government has an overriding duty to ensure the Second Amendment is “not treated as a second-class right.”
Recommended Stories
- Trump ally assumes Virginia prosecutor post after Letitia James case scuffle
- North Carolina weighs ‘Iryna’s Law’ toughening crime consequences after rail stabbing
- Ryan Routh to begin his case in trial over attempted Trump assassination
Oral arguments are underway in Barnett v. Raoul, the NRA-backed challenge to Illinois’ unconstitutional ban on commonly owned firearms and magazines.
— NRA (@NRA) September 22, 2025
Don't miss @AAGDhillon's remarks explaining why this ban violates the Second Amendment.
WATCH LIVE: https://t.co/5Y6Xp4Kxn2 pic.twitter.com/VkPCwm7o8H
“The federal interest here is significant,” Dhillon said, arguing that the court’s 2023 decision upholding the law rested on a flawed interpretation of Supreme Court precedent, particularly the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen ruling. “Firearms in common civilian use are clearly protected, and courts cannot sidestep that by calling them ‘dangerous’ or ‘unusual.’”
At issue is a challenge by gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association, against a law signed by Gov. JB Pritzker (D-IL) in early 2023 following the Highland Park parade shooting, which left seven people dead. The statute bans the sale of rifles such as the AR-15 and limits magazine capacities to 10 rounds for long guns and 15 for handguns. While Pritzker has called it a landmark achievement for public safety, critics say it criminalizes commonly owned firearms and violates the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Dhillon’s remarks came during a 90-minute session before Judges Frank Easterbrook, appointed by former President Ronald Reagan; Michael Brennan, appointed by President Donald Trump; and Amy St. Eve, appointed by former President George W. Bush.
Her appearance underscored the Trump DOJ’s growing commitment to dismantling state-level firearm restrictions through aggressive litigation. While it is not uncommon for the federal government to submit amicus or “friend-of-the-court” briefs in favor of third parties, it’s rare for political appointees to argue on behalf of a private litigant.
Judge Easterbrook, who co-authored a 2023 opinion that rejected gun rights groups’ request to enjoin the law, pressed Dhillon sharply on whether any factual findings by lower courts, such as those establishing the law’s public safety rationale, would change her constitutional view.
“Suppose the district court found every fact in favor of the state — would it matter?” he asked.
Dhillon responded, “It would not, your honor.”
Easterbrook shot back, “So you don’t think the facts matter?”, prompting Dhillon to clarify, “Facts matter in law, of course. But under Bruen, history — not balancing tests or policy determinations—guides constitutional analysis.”
St. Eve also scrutinized both sides, asking an attorney for the plaintiffs whether the prevalence of AR-style rifles in mass shootings affects their legal status.
“Every weapon is dangerous in the wrong hands,” attorney Erin Murphy replied, “but that doesn’t strip them of constitutional protection.”
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, a Democrat whose office is defending the law, attended but did not speak. Lawyers for his office argued that the banned weapons are more akin to military-grade firearms and therefore outside the scope of the Second Amendment.
Dhillon countered that view directly, arguing the 7th Circuit’s previous logic is “out of step” with the Supreme Court’s developing framework. She echoed Justice Clarence Thomas, who has warned that bans on widely owned civilian rifles may be ripe for Supreme Court intervention.
GUN GROUPS ASK COURT TO OVERTURN ‘PERILOUS PRECEDENT’ IN SUPPRESSOR REGISTRATION CASE
Although the 7th Circuit initially shunned pro-gun litigants seeking to stall the law pending further litigation, the current phase of the lawsuit is handling the actual constitutional merits and is considering whether to uphold or overturn U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn’s November ruling that the law is unconstitutional.
A decision by the appeals court is expected later this year. Similar challenges to bans in California and New Jersey are also advancing through the courts, increasing the likelihood that the justices will eventually weigh in.