The Justice Department is now using the Civil Rights Division as an affirmative enforcement vehicle for Second Amendment claims — not merely defending federal positions in individual cases, but suing states and localities it says are disarming law-abiding citizens. The premise is simple: the Second Amendment is a right on equal footing with every other guarantee in the Bill of Rights, not a second-class one.
The Department of Justice has created a dedicated Second Amendment Section inside its Civil Rights Division and is using the federal police "pattern or practice" statute, 34 U.S.C. § 12601, as the vehicle for affirmative Second Amendment enforcement. That theory is novel and contested, but the Department has now filed multiple lawsuits and opened investigations challenging permitting delays, registration bans, magazine limits, handgun rosters, and bans on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles. Through mid-2026 the Department has brought roughly seven firearms-related lawsuits — with officials describing more than a dozen challenges in total — targeting jurisdictions including California, Virginia, Colorado, Denver, Washington, D.C., the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Los Angeles County, plus an investigation in Philadelphia. The strategy arrives as the Supreme Court has, for the first time, agreed to decide whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess AR-15-platform and similar semi-automatic rifles.
A New Front for the Civil Rights Division
For decades, the Civil Rights Division was the arm of the Justice Department that sued police departments over excessive force, unlawful stops, and racial discrimination. In December 2025, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon announced something new: a dedicated Second Amendment Section whose mission, in the Department's own words, is to ensure that law-abiding Americans may responsibly possess, carry, and use firearms.
The Section's charter goes beyond reacting to complaints. It commits the Division to proactively search for litigation opportunities and to advance a broad reading of the Second Amendment through original lawsuits, motions to intervene, statements of interest, and amicus briefs. In plain terms: the federal government has decided to litigate for gun owners, and to do so on offense.
This is a genuine departure. Prior administrations of both parties defended individual gun rights in Supreme Court filings — the Bush administration's position in District of Columbia v. Heller is the classic example — but no prior Department had used the Civil Rights Division to bring affirmative suits challenging state and local gun laws.
The choice of forum is itself the message. The Civil Rights Division exists to vindicate the guarantees of the Constitution — the First Amendment, the Fourteenth, the right to vote. Housing Second Amendment enforcement in that same division treats the right to keep and bear arms as belonging in that company: an ordinary civil right, enforced the way the others are, rather than a disfavored exception. Whether that framing prevails in court is a separate question — but as a statement of the government's position, it is unmistakable.
The Legal Mechanism: 34 U.S.C. § 12601
The engine behind the campaign is the federal "pattern or practice" statute, 34 U.S.C. § 12601, enacted as part of the 1994 Crime Bill. It makes it unlawful for a governmental authority to engage in a pattern or practice of law-enforcement conduct that deprives people of rights secured by the Constitution, and it authorizes the Attorney General to sue for "equitable and declaratory relief" to stop it.
Historically, that statute was the vehicle for institutional police-reform consent decrees — Ferguson, Baltimore, Seattle, and similar cases. The Department's theory here reframes the same tool: when a state or city enforces a gun law that (in the Department's view) violates the Second Amendment, the ongoing threat of criminal enforcement against otherwise law-abiding owners is itself a pattern or practice depriving citizens of a constitutional right.
The substantive argument rests on a line of Supreme Court decisions. Under District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Second Amendment protects arms "in common use" for lawful purposes. In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Court applied that right to the states and expressly declined to treat it as a "second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees." And under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen (2022), a challenged law survives only if the government shows it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Department's core contention follows from that footing: relying on industry estimates that more than 32 million modern sporting rifles — including AR-15-platform rifles — are in circulation, it argues those firearms are plainly in common use, and that there is no historical tradition of banning arms in common use for the government to point to.
The Litigation Campaign So Far
The following actions have been announced or filed as of mid-2026. Descriptions of pending suits reflect the allegations the Department has made; none of these cases has yet been decided on the merits.
Sept. 30, 2025 — California
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. The Division alleged unconstitutional delays in issuing concealed-carry licenses, citing a record in which thousands of applications sat pending while interviews were reportedly scheduled years out — longer than the license's own validity period.
Dec. 16, 2025 — U.S. Virgin Islands
Virgin Islands Police Department. The Department alleged unreasonable permitting delays, conditions such as bolted-in gun-safe requirements, and continued enforcement of a "proper cause" standard the complaint compares to the New York regime struck down in Bruen.
December 2025 — Washington, D.C.
District "assault weapon" ban. The Division challenged the District's prohibition on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles.
May 2026 — Colorado & Denver
Magazine cap and municipal "assault weapons" ban. The Department sued the State over its restriction on "large-capacity" magazines and the City of Denver over its ordinance barring AR-15-style rifles, seeking permanent injunctions against enforcement.
June 2026 — Pennsylvania
Philadelphia Police Department investigation. The Division opened a pattern-or-practice investigation into the city's carry-permit revocation process, examining an allegedly vague "good cause" standard — often a precursor to suit.
July 1, 2026 — Virginia
SB 749 "assault firearm" ban. Filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, the complaint alleges the newly effective ban unconstitutionally prohibits commonly owned rifles. Notably, it acknowledges that current Fourth Circuit precedent — Bianchi v. Brown, upholding Maryland's ban — cuts against the government, and argues that precedent was wrongly decided and should be overturned. For the state-court injunction and compliance picture, see our Virginia "assault firearm" ban update.
July 1, 2026 — California
"Glock ban" and handgun roster. The Department challenged California's restriction on pistols with features that make them susceptible to illegal conversion — the so-called "Glock ban" — and also targeted the state's handgun roster limiting which models may be sold.
By the Department's own count, adding statements of interest and amicus filings — including in the long-running ammunition-background-check case Rhode v. Bonta — brings the total to more than a dozen firearms-related interventions nationwide.
Why the Timing Matters: The Supreme Court Steps In
On June 30, 2026, the final day of its term, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in two cases and consolidated them: Viramontes v. Cook County (the Illinois/Seventh Circuit challenge) and Grant v. Higgins (the Connecticut/Second Circuit challenge). Argument is expected in the term beginning October 2026, with a decision anticipated by mid-2027.
This is historic. The Court has agreed to decide whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess AR-15-platform and similar semi-automatic rifles — a question that will directly affect the future of many state and local "assault weapon" bans, and one it had repeatedly declined to take up even as several Justices signaled it could not be avoided forever. Whatever framework the Court announces will govern how lower courts resolve the Department's pending challenges to the Virginia, California, Colorado, and D.C. laws. We cover the cert grant in detail in The Supreme Court Will Decide Whether the Second Amendment Protects the AR-15.
Gun owners should keep the current landscape in view: to date, the major federal appellate decisions addressing "assault weapon" and large-capacity magazine bans have generally upheld them, including the Fourth Circuit's en banc decision in Bianchi v. Brown sustaining Maryland's ban. The DOJ's theory asks courts — and ultimately the Supreme Court — to change that. It is a strong tailwind for the Second Amendment community, but it is not yet a settled win.
The Debate Over the Strategy
Candor is owed here, because the legal questions are real. The novel use of § 12601 has drawn objections that gun owners should understand, if only to gauge the risk.
State officials have argued that the Department is stretching a police-misconduct statute to attack duly enacted legislation. Colorado's Attorney General and Denver's City Attorney, among others, have questioned whether enforcing a state law can count as a "pattern or practice" of the kind § 12601 was written to reach. Virginia's Attorney General characterized the suit as a "misuse" of the Civil Rights Division, and California's Attorney General has defended the challenged measures as commonsense handgun-safety laws. These are the counterarguments the Department will have to overcome, and reasonable lawyers can disagree about how the courts will resolve them.
The honest assessment: the substantive Second Amendment arguments — common use, no historical analogue — are the same ones now squarely before the Supreme Court, and they are gaining ground. The procedural vehicle, § 12601, is more contested and largely untested for this purpose. A favorable Supreme Court ruling on the merits would matter far more to the ultimate outcome than the label on the Department's complaint.
What This Means for Gun Owners
The wind has shifted. In a decisive break from past practice, the federal government's civil-rights machinery is now being used affirmatively to protect, rather than restrict, the right to keep and bear arms — treating it as equal in dignity to the other rights the Division enforces.
Momentum is not a guarantee. Existing appellate precedent still favors the bans. Until the Supreme Court rules, the laws in these states generally remain on the books and enforceable — compliance still matters.
Watch the state lines. If you own, transport, or transfer regulated firearms — including NFA items — across jurisdictions with "assault weapon" bans, magazine caps, or handgun rosters, the law that governs you today is the law as currently written, not as it may read after 2027.
Maryland owners, take note. With Bianchi squarely in the Department's crosshairs and a Supreme Court decision on the horizon, Maryland's regulatory posture is among the most likely to be affected by the coming ruling.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the DOJ's Second Amendment Section?
It is a dedicated office created within the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division and announced in December 2025. Its stated mission is to ensure that law-abiding Americans may responsibly possess, carry, and use firearms, pursued through lawsuits, investigations, statements of interest, and amicus briefs.
What law is the DOJ using to sue states over gun laws?
Primarily 34 U.S.C. § 12601, the federal "pattern or practice" statute. It authorizes the Attorney General to seek equitable and declaratory relief when a governmental authority engages in a pattern or practice of law-enforcement conduct that deprives people of constitutional rights. The Department argues that enforcing an unconstitutional gun law qualifies.
Which states and localities has the DOJ sued or investigated?
Actions announced through mid-2026 include suits involving the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, the Virgin Islands Police Department, Washington, D.C., Colorado and Denver, Virginia, and California, plus an investigation into the Philadelphia Police Department. Officials describe more than a dozen firearms-related challenges when amicus filings and statements of interest are counted.
Is using the Civil Rights Division to defend gun rights legally settled?
No. This application of § 12601 is novel and contested. The statute has historically been used for institutional police-reform cases and provides no private right of action. State officials have argued the Department is improperly attacking legislation through a police-misconduct statute. Whether the theory succeeds remains unsettled and is being litigated.
How does the Supreme Court's 2026 cert grant affect these cases?
On June 30, 2026, the Court granted review in Viramontes v. Cook County (Illinois) and Grant v. Higgins (Connecticut), consolidated for argument in the term beginning October 2026. The Court will decide whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess AR-15-platform and similar semi-automatic rifles — the first time it has taken up that question directly. A ruling, expected by mid-2027, would set the framework courts apply to the Department's pending challenges.
34 U.S.C. § 12601 (cause of action — police "pattern or practice"); U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Rights Division — Second Amendment Section (mission statement and press releases); DOJ complaints and press releases in United States v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (filed Sept. 30, 2025), United States v. City of Denver, No. 1:26-cv-01929 (D. Colo.), and the Virginia (SB 749) and California ("Glock ban" and handgun roster) suits (July 1, 2026); District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008); McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010); New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022); cert-grant announcements in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins (June 30, 2026); contemporaneous reporting (June–July 2026). Last reviewed July 8, 2026 — case postures and effective dates in this area change quickly; confirm the current status of any matter before relying on it.
Related reading: for the Supreme Court case that will shape all of these suits, see The Supreme Court Will Decide Whether the Second Amendment Protects the AR-15 — and for the DOJ's newest target in this campaign, see Virginia's "assault firearm" ban: where things stand.
Questions about how this affects you? Need help understanding how these lawsuits affect your firearms, NFA items, or gun trust? Contact Russ Roby Law for a firearms compliance consultation. This article is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. Firearms law — including the constitutionality of "assault weapon" and magazine restrictions and the scope of federal civil-rights enforcement — is unsettled and rapidly evolving; the matters described here are the subject of active litigation and have not been finally decided. Nothing herein should be relied upon as a prediction of any court's ruling.
Related Articles
The Supreme Court Will Decide Whether the Second Amendment Protects the AR-15
On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Viramontes v. Cook County and consolidated it with Grant v. Higgins, agreeing to decide whether the Second Amendment protects AR-15-platform and similar semi-automatic rifles. Oral argument is expected in fall 2026; a decision is likely by mid-2027. No ban has been struck down — all existing laws remain fully in force.
What Is an NFA Trust?
A gun trust isn't just paperwork — it's a legal structure that changes who can legally use your NFA items, both now and after you're gone.
Do I Need a Gun Trust?
Not everyone does. Here's how to figure out whether a gun trust is worth it for your specific situation — and when simpler options work just fine.