Cases relevant to Illinois

[Euler]

I'm providing here a list that I have put together for another organization.

US Supreme Court

DC v Heller (2008)

Filed: US District Court for DC, 2003

Sponsor: independent funding organized by the Cato Institute

Synopsis: The District of Columbia prohibited possession of handguns in the home by the general public and required those individuals that did possess firearms to keep them in an unusable state.

Opinion: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding or that are not useful in warfare, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Requiring all firearms, including rifles and shotguns, to be kept unloaded and disassembled or otherwise unavailable for immediate use violates that right.

McDonald v Chicago (2010)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2008

Sponsor: Second Amendment Foundation

Synopsis: Chicago required handguns to be registered, but refused to register handguns, effectively banning possession of handguns.

Opinion: The Second Amendment right recognized in Heller is equally applicable to the states as the federal government through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Caetano v MA (2016)

Filed: Framingham District Court, 2011

Sponsor: Massachusetts Committee For Public Counsel Services (Public Defender Division, Boston)

Synopsis: Massachusetts convicted Jaime Caetano for possession of a stun gun, which state law banned, when she successfully used it to defend herself from an abusive ex-boyfriend.

Opinion: Reiterating Heller and McDonald, Second Amendment protection extends to weapons that did not exist when the Second Amendment was enacted and that are not in military use. In this case, that protection includes stun guns.

Voisine v US (2016)

Filed: US District Court for Maine, 2011

Sponsor: Federal Defender Program (Bangor)

Synopsis: Maine convicted Stephen Voisine of misdemeanor domestic violence under a state statute which includes reckless offensive contact. He was subsequently convicted for possessing a firearm in violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Voisine challenged the constitutionality of the GCA as applied to him, because he contended that his domestic violence was reckless rather than violent. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on only the applicability of the GCA, not its constitutionality.

Opinion: The federal ban on firearms possession applies to any person with a prior misdemeanor conviction for the use of physical force against a domestic relation. That language, naturally read, encompasses acts of force undertaken recklessly -- i.e., with conscious disregard of a substantial risk of harm. State misdemeanor assault statutes cover reckless conduct in a significant majority of jurisdictions. Possession of a gun following a conviction under state law for abusing a domestic partner recklessly therefore violates the GCA.

NYSRPA v Bruen (2022)

Filed: US District Court for Northern New York, 2018

Sponsor: New York State Rifle and Pistol Association

Synopsis: New York required applicants for a concealed carry permit to show a good cause why NY should issue them a permit.

Opinion: To determine whether a firearm regulation is consistent with the Second Amendment, courts should not conduct means-end scrutiny, but assess whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense and whether that regulatory burden is comparably justified. A requirement to demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding individuals with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to carry arms in public.

Garland v Cargill (2024)

Filed: US District Court for Western Texas, 2019

Sponsor: New Civil Liberties Alliance

Synopsis: Michael Cargill challenged the constitutionality of an ATF rule which classified bump stocks as machine guns, which are banned if they have been manufactured after 1986.

Opinion: A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a "machinegun" because it cannot fire more than one shot "by a single function of the trigger" and because, even if it could, it would not do so "automatically." ATF therefore exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a rule that classifies bump stocks as machineguns.

US v Rahimi (2024)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Texas, 2021

Sponsor: Federal Defender Program (Amarillo)

Synopsis: Zackey Rahimi was subject to a domestic violence restraining order against which he had an opportunity to defend himself. He was subsequently convicted for possessing a firearm in violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Rahimi challenged the constitutionality of the GCA provision which prohibits firearm possession by subjects of DVROs.

Opinion: An individual found by a court through procedural due process, similar to a criminal conviction or an adjudication of mental illness, to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.

Bondi v VanDerStok (2025)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Texas, 2022 (as VanDerStok v Garland)

Sponsor: Firearms Policy Coalition, Mountain States Legal Foundation

Synopsis: VanDerStok challenged the applicability of an ATF rule which expands the definition of "firearm" to include weapon parts kits without a frame or receiver and items that, with additional manufacturing, could become frames and receivers.

Opinion: While some products may be beyond the reach of the rule, some are not. Therefore neither the provisions of ATF's rule addressing weapon parts kits nor its treatment of partially complete frames and receivers is facially inconsistent with the Gun Control Act.

Wolford v Lopez (active)

Filed: US District Court for Hawaii, 2023

Sponsor: Hawaii Firearms Coalition

Synopsis: Hawaii state law prohibits firearms everywhere by default.

Status: The district court granted an injunction, which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated. The US Supreme Court heard arguments in January 2026 for an interlocutory certiorari.

US v Hemani (active)

Filed: US District Court for Eastern Texas, 2023

Sponsor: CLEAR Project (CUNY School of Law)

Synopsis: Hemani is a pro-Iranian drug dealer who uses marijuana. The Gun Control Act of 1968 pohibits firearm possession by users of illegal substances. Hemani has not been charged with being a drug dealer or conducting pro-Iranian actions.

Status: The district court dismissed the charges as unconstitutional, which the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Arguments are scheduled for March 2026.

Federal Appellate Court, 7th Circuit

Ezell v Chicago (2011) - Ezell I

Ezell v Chicago (2017) - Ezell II

Filed: US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2010

Sponsor: Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation

Synopsis: Chicago's municipal code prohibited public firing ranges within the city. After Ezell I, the city replaced its range ban with a complicated set of zoning ordinances which amounted to nearly the same thing.

Opinion: The range ban and the set of zoning ordinances which amount to the same thing violate not only the right to train at a range, but also the core Second Amendment right to possess firearms for self-defense.

Moore v Madigan (2012)

Filed: US District Court for Central Illinois, 2011

Sponsor: IllinoisCarry, Second Amendment Foundation

Consolidated with Shepard v Madigan

Filed: US District Court for Southern Illinois, 2011

Sponsor: Illinois State Rifle Association

Synopsis: Illinois statutes generally prohibited private individuals from carrying loaded and immediately accessible handguns in public.

Opinion: The US Supreme Court has decided that the Second Amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside. The theoretical and empirical evidence is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense.

Friedman v Highland Park (2015)

Filed: Lake County Circuit Court, removed to US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2013

Sponsor: Illinois State Rifle Association

Synopsis: Highland Park prohibits the manufacture, transfer, and possession of "assault weapons," parts from which such weapons could be assembled, and "large capacity" magazines.

Opinion: At least some categorical limits on the kinds of weapons that can be possessed are proper, and they need not mirror restrictions that were on the books in 1791. Governments should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military‐grade firearms. A ban on assault weapons and large‐capacity magazines might not prevent shootings in Highland Park, but it may reduce the carnage if a mass shooting occurs. If a ban on semi‐automatic guns and large‐capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that's a substantial benefit. The best way to evaluate the relation among assault weapons, crime, and self‐defense is through the political process and scholarly debate, not by parsing ambiguous passages in the Supreme Court's opinions. The court affirms the judgment for Highland Park.

Culp v Raoul (2019)

Filed: US District Court for Central Illinois, 2014

Sponsor: IllinoisCarry, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation

Synopsis: The Illinois Concealed Carry Act prohibits residents of most other states from obtaining an Illinois concealed carry license.

Opinion: Undisputed empirical evidence shows that Illinois is without a reliable means of monitoring or otherwise learning of intervening, material adverse developments with the criminal history and mental health of nonresidents. The Second Amendment allows Illinois to account for this limitation in determining the terms on which to award concealed carry licenses to out-of-state residents. The court affirms the judgment for the state.

Wilson v Cook County (2019)

Filed: Cook County Circuit Court, removed to US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2017

Sponsor: Illinois State Rifle Association

Synopsis: Cook County prohibits the manufacture, transfer, and possession of "assault weapons" and "large capacity" magazines.

Opinion: The plaintiffs have come forward with no reason -- much less a compelling one -- for the court to revisit Friedman. The court affirms the dismissal of the complaint.

Mathews v Illinois (active)

Filed: US District Court for Central Illinois, 2018 (as Powell v Illinois)

Sponsor: Brady United Against Gun Violence

Synopsis: Plaintiffs seek to compel Illinois State Police to adopt gun trafficking regulations on its own authority. Initially the justification was to eliminate violence subjecting black children to stress. As amended, the justification is to eliminate the diversion of legal firearms into illegal markets.

Status: Plaintiffs have tried and failed several times to have the case certified as a class action. The district court dismissed the case without prejudice on June 13, 2025. Mathews appealed. The state cross-appealed to get prejudice attached to the dismissal. The cases have been consolidated. A briefing schedule has been set.

White v ISP (2021)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2019

Sponsor: Illinois State Rifle Association

Synopsis: The Illinois Concealed Carry Act allows the state to deny an application for a concealed carry license based on the objections of law enforcement agencies.

Opinion: The text of the Concealed Carry Act does not create a permanent ban based on law enforcement objections and CCL Board review; and White has not explained why he thinks he can never obtain a concealed carry license. This case provides no occasion for the court to address whether or under what circumstances law enforcement objections and CCL Board review in the Concealed Carry Act are unconstitutional. The court affirms the dismissal of the complaint.

US v Carbajal-Flores (2025)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2020

Sponsor: (unknown)

Synopsis: Heriberto Carbajal-Flores is an undocumented immigrant who was arrested and indicted for possessing a firearm in violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968. He is challenging the constitutionality of the GCA provision which prohibits firearm possession by undocumented immigrants.

Opinion: Our nation's regulatory tradition supports disarming aliens who have not sworn an oath of allegiance. The challenged statute extends no further than disarming people "illegally or unlawfully in the United States." 18 USC 922(g)(5)(A) is facially constitutional. District courts need not conduct individualized (as-applied) assessments of illegal aliens.

Viramontes v Cook County (2025)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2021

Sponsor: Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation

Synopsis: Cook County prohibits the manufacture, transfer, and possession of "assault weapons" and "large capacity" magazines.

Opinion: We addressed a similar challenge to the ordinance on appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction in Bevis v. City of Naperville. Viramontes has failed to develop a record sufficient to justify a different result. We therefore affirm the dismissal.

US v Prince (active)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2022

Sponsor: Federal Defender Program (Chicago)

Synopsis: Glen Prince has previous felony convictions for armed robbery and aggravated battery. He was subsequently arrested and indicted for possessing a firearm in violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prince is challenging the constitutionality of the GCA provision which prohibits firearm possession by convicted felons.

Status: The district court ruled that the prohibition is unconstitutional under Bruen both as applied and facially and dismissed the indictment. The US DoJ has appealed. The court heard oral arguments on December 11, 2024.

Schoenthal v Raoul (2025)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2022

Sponsor: Firearms Policy Coalition, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation

Synopsis: The Illinois Concealed Carry Act prohibits otherwise legal concealed carry on public transportation and in public transportation facilities.

Opinion: We are asked whether the state may temporarily disarm its citizens as they travel in crowded and confined metal tubes unlike anything the Founders envisioned. We draw from the lessons of our nation's historical regulatory traditions and find no Second Amendment violation in such a regulation.

Anderson v Raoul (active)

Filed: US District Court for Southern Illinois, 2023

Sponsor: American Suppressor Association

Consolidated with Morse v Raoul

Filed: US District Court for Southern Illinois, 2022

Sponsor: pro bono (district), IllinoisCarry (appellate)

Synopsis: Illinois statutes prohibit private individuals from purchasing, possessing, or otherwise using silencers/suppressors. The cases were consolidated under Morse in district court.

Status: The district court ruled that silencers are not arms under the Second Amendment, because they have no founding-era analog. The case is being briefed.

Barnett v Raoul (active)

Filed: US District Court for Southern Illinois, 2023

Sponsor: National Sports Shooting Foundation

Consolidated with Harrel v Raoul

Filed: US District Court for Southern Illinois, 2023

Sponsor: Firearms Policy Coalition, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation

Consolidated with Langley v Kelly

Filed: Crawford County Circuit Court, removed to US District Court for Southern Illinois, 2023

Sponsor: (unknown)

Consolidated with FFL-IL v Pritzker

Filed: US District Court for Southern Illinois, 2023

Sponsor: Gun Owners of America, Guns Save Life

Synopsis: The Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) bans manufacture, transfer, and possession of "assault weapons," parts from which such weapons could be assembled, and "large capacity" magazines.

Status: The district court enjoined the law. The state appealed. The appellate court vacated the injunction. Oral arguments are scheduled for September 22, 2025.

Federal District Court

Solomon v Madigan (2021)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2017

Sponsor: (unknown)

Synopsis: The Illinois Concealed Carry Act prohibits otherwise legal concealed carry in certain specific places. The Cook County Forest Preserve was one of them.

Opinion: The court finds that the prohibition against concealed carry in Cook County Forest Preserve to be unconstitutionally overbroad, and its enforcement is enjoined.

Miller v Smith (active)

Filed: US District Court for Central Illinois, 2018

Sponsor: IllinoisCarry, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation

Synopsis: The Illinois Department of Children and Family Services prohibits residents who are or wish to be day care home licensees from possessing firearms in the home.

Status: The district court initially dismissed the case. The appellate court reversed the dismissal and remanded it back to district court for further proceedings. A trial is scheduled for January 2026.

Atkinson v Garland (active)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2021

Sponsor: Illinois State Rifle Association

Synopsis: Patrick Atkinson has a previous felony conviction for mail fraud. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms. Atkinson seeks restoration of his 2A civil liberties.

Status: The district court initially dismissed the case. The appellate court reversed the dismissal and remanded it back to district court for further proceedings.

Meyer v Raoul (active)

Filed: US District Court for Southern Illinois, 2021

Sponsor: Firearms Policy Coalition, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation

Synopsis: The Illinois Concealed Carry Act prohibits anyone between 18 and 20 years of age from obtaining a concealed carry license.

Status: As the case endures, plaintiffs periodically file motions to add a plaintiff who is between 18 and 20 years of age.

Bevis v Naperville (active)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2022

Sponsor: National Association for Gun Rights

Synopsis: Naperville bans sale of "assault rifles." Additionally, the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) bans manufacture, transfer, and possession of "assault weapons," parts from which such weapons could be assembled, and "large capacity" magazines.

Status: The case is stayed pending a decision in Barnett v Raoul.

Herrera v Raoul (active)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2023

Sponsor: America First Legal Foundation

Synopsis: The Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) bans manufacture, transfer, and possession of "assault weapons," parts from which such weapons could be assembled, and "large capacity" magazines. Separately, Cook County prohibits the manufacture, transfer, and possession of "assault weapons" and "large capacity" magazines.

Status: Expert depositions are scheduled to be complete by February 2026.

NSSF v Raoul (active)

Filed: US District Court for Southern Illinois, 2023

Sponsor: National Shooting Sports Foundation

Synopsis: The Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act makes firearm manufacturers civilly liable for anything otherwise legal that they might do outside Illinois if an Illinois judge or jury deems it to have affected public health or safety in Illinois.

Status: Parties have rejected mediation. The court has stayed the case pending a scheduling order.

Zahareas v Raoul (active)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2023

Sponsor: (unknown)

Synopsis: When Steven Zahareas allegedly defended himself from a road rager, Schaumburg police filed a Clear and Present Danger report on him, revoking his FOID. Zahareas is seeking damages and to have the C&PD law declared unconstitutional.

Status: The judge dismissed the case against Officer Centeno. The state has filed simultaneous motions to moot the case on the basis of HB850, signed into law as PA 104-0005, and for a judgment on the pleadings.

Kuhlman v Hines (active)

Filed: US District Court for Central Illinois, 2024

Sponsor: Illinois State Rifle Association

Synopsis: When Robert Kuhlman responded to his mother's call for help with a prowler at her house, Normal police filed a Clear and Present Danger report on him, revoking his FOID and CCL. Kuhlman is seeking damages.

Status: A trial is scheduled for March 2026.

Ruiz v Raoul (active)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2025

Sponsor: (pro se)

Synopsis: Ramon Ruiz is a Florida resident who previously lived in Illinois and has an Illinois firearm prohibition due to a previous felony conviction, which has since been expunged. Illinois statutes prohibit 2A rights restoration by non-residents. Ruiz seeks to have the residency requirement declared unconstitutional.

Status: Plaintiff has filed his complaint.

State Court

Johnson v ISP (2020)

Filed: Wabash County Circuit Court, 2013

Sponsor: (unknown)

Synopsis: In 2001, Shawna Johnson pled guilty to misdemeanor battery for striking her then-husband and was sentenced to two days in jail (her pretrial detention). In 2010, unaware that her 2001 conviction qualified as domestic battery, she obtained a FOID and attempted to purchase a firearm, which was denied because of her 2001 conviction. The Illinois State Police revoked her FOID. She petitioned the circuit court for relief. Eventually the circuit court ruled that various provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the FOID Card Act, and the Illinois Administrative Code violated her Second Amendment rights and ordered the ISP to reinstate her FOID. The ISP petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court, which unanimously ordered ISP to reinstate Johnson's FOID.

Opinion: We affirm the judgment of the circuit court directing the issuance of a FOID card to Johnson. There is no need to address the constitutional basis for the trial court's ruling. Accordingly, we vacate the circuit court's holding that relevant provisions of the federal Gun Control Act, the FOID Card Act, and the Illinois Administrative Code are unconstitutional as applied to Johnson.

People v Chairez (2018)

Filed: Kane County Circuit Court, 2015

Sponsor: Kane County Public Defender's Office

Synopsis: In 2013, Julio Chairez pled guilty in Kane County Circuit Court to possessing a firearm within 1000 feet of a park, a Class 3 felony. In 2015, Chairez petitioned the circuit court to vacate his conviction on the grounds that the statute was unconstitutional. The circuit court found the entire 1000-foot restriction zone unconstitutional, including around locations other than parks. The supreme court unanimously affirmed the circuit court decision with regard to the provision around parks, but reversed the circuit court with regard to the statute's other locations.

Opinion: The State provides no evidentiary support for its claims that prohibiting firearms within 1000 feet of a public park would reduce the risks it identifies. The State concedes that the 1000-foot firearm restriction zone around a public park would effectively prohibit the possession of a firearm for self-defense within a vast majority of the acreage in the city of Chicago. The most troubling aspect is the lack of any notification where the 1000-foot restriction zone would start and where it would end. Accordingly, we hold that the prohibition against possessing a firearm within 1000 feet of a public park in 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(4) and 5/24-1(c)(1.5) is facially unconstitutional.

People v Webb (2019)

Filed: DuPage County Circuit Court, 2016

Sponsor: (unknown)

Consolidated with People v Greco

Filed: DuPage County Circuit Court, 2016

Sponsor: (unknown)

Synopsis: In 2016, Isiah Webb and Ronald Greco were separately found to be carrying stun guns by Westmont police and DuPage Forest Preserve District police, respectively. They were charged with misdemeanor Unlawful Use of a Weapon (UUW). Both filed motions to have their charges dismissed on the grounds that the UUW statute was an unconstitutional ban on stun guns and tasers. The circuit court and a unanimous supreme court agreed.

Opinion: The prohibitions set forth in the UUW statute do not apply to weapons "carried or possessed in accordance with the Firearm Concealed Carry Act." The Firearm Concealed Carry Act provides, in part, that a license to carry a "concealed firearm ... does not include a stun gun or taser." The UUW statute therefore categorically prohibits carriage and possession of stun guns and tasers in public. Stun guns and tasers are bearable arms under the purview of the Second Amendment. Accordingly, we hold that the portion of 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(4) that prohibits the carriage or possession of stun guns and tasers is facially unconstitutional.

People v Brown (active)

Filed: White County Circuit Court, 2017

Sponsor: Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation

Synopsis: Vivian Brown has no FOID, although she is eligible to have one, and kept a bolt-action .22LR rifle in her home for self-defense. She was charged with Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon (a misdemeanor) for possession of the firearm without a FOID.

Status: The circuit court has ruled four times for Brown, three of those times (including the last) finding the FOID unconstitutional as applied to Brown and dismissing the case. Two of those times, the Illinois State Supreme Court reversed the circuit court and remanded the case back to the circuit court for further proceedings. One time, the appellate court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case back to circuit court for further proceedings. The state has dropped a petition to the supreme court, since the FOID has been found constitutional in a superseding case. The state may drop the charges; or the trial court may issue a judgment consistent with the FOID being constitutional.

Easterday v Deerfield (2020)

Filed: Lake County Circuit Court, 2018

Sponsor: Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation

Consolidated with Guns Save Life v Deerfield

Filed: Lake County Circuit Court, 2018

Sponsor: Guns Save Life

Synopsis: The Village of Deerfield amended its firearm ordinances in 2018 to ban "assault weapons" and "large capacity" magazines, after the state had preempted the passage of such local ordinances. The circuit court enjoined the 2018 ordinances. The appellate court let stand the injunction in part and vacated it in part. The supreme court tied (3-3 with one recusal), by default affirming the appellate opinion.

Opinion: Deerfield's 2013 ordinance, which pre-dated state preemption, regulated the possession and ownership of assault weapons, thus preserving its power to regulate assault weapons. Deerfield's 2018 ordinances were amendments to the 2013 ordinance. To the extent that Deerfield's ban of large capacity magazines applies to handguns, Deerfield is prohibited from enforcing that ordinance against individuals who hold valid FOID cards or concealed carry licenses. In all other respects, the permanent injunction issued by the trial court is vacated.

Evans v Cook County State's Attorney (2021)

Filed: Cook County Circuit Court, 2018

Sponsor: Illinois State Rifle Association

Synopsis: In 1994, Alfred Evans Jr. was convicted of several felony drug charges. Evans petitioned Cook County Circuit Court to have his firearm rights restored under 430 ILCS 65/10(c). The circuit court denied the petition. The appellate court affirmed the denial. The supreme court affirmed the denial (4-3).

Opinion: State and federal statutes do not create a loop that prevents felons from ever obtaining a firearm. However, petitioner failed to meet his burden to show that granting him relief would not be contrary to the public interest. The denial of the petition is affirmed.

BFF Firearms v Raoul (active)

Filed: Sangamon County Circuit Court, 2019

Sponsor: Illinois State Rifle Association

Synopsis: Plaintiffs seek to enjoin several provisions of the Firearm Dealer License Certification Act because they are vague and burdensome, especially to smaller retailers.

Status: The filing of an amended complaint has been pending since 2020.

Roberts v Smith & Wesson (active)

Filed: Lake County Circuit Court, 2022

Sponsor: Everytown for Gun Safety

Consolidated with 11 other cases (Bennett, Sundheim, Straus, Rebollar Sedano, Rodriguez, Tenorio, Vergara, Toledo, Zeifert, Turnipseed, Chupack)

Filed: Lake County Circuit Court, 2022

Sponsor: Everytown for Gun Safety

Synopsis: Twelve families of victims of the shooting in Highland Park on July 4, 2022, seek to hold Smith & Wesson liable for the manufacture and deceptive marketing of the weapon which the shooter used.

Status: S&W had the case removed to federal court. The plaintiffs had it remanded back to state court.

Reece v Raoul (active)

Filed: Will County Circuit Court, 2023

Sponsor: Illinois State Rifle Association

Synopsis: On April 28, 2023, the US District Court for Southern Illinois enjoined the Protect Illinois Communities Act. On May 4, the US Appellate Court, Seventh Circuit, stayed the injunction. There is no provision in PICA nor in the rules adopted by the Illinois State Police to allow people who purchased items prohibited by PICA during the injunction to possess those items lawfully. Reece seeks to have the prohibition declared unenforceable and enjoined for such items.

Status: The trial court ruled for the state. The appellate court affirmed. Plaintiffs intend to petition the Illinois Supreme Court.

Chicago v Glock (active)

Filed: Cook County Circuit Court, 2024

Sponsor: Everytown for Gun Safety

Synopsis: Chicago seeks to enjoin the sale of Glock handguns to non-law-enforcement consumers through retailers that serve the Chicago area, to order Glock to alter the design of its handguns so that they may not be readily converted from semi-automatic to automatic with the addition of an aftermarket switch, and to hold Glock responsible for any crime in which a perpetrator used a converted Glock handgun.

Status: Chicago filed a nearly identical case in Cook County earlier, but Glock had that case removed to federal court. Chicago voluntarily stipulated the earlier case's dismissal and filed this case again in Cook County. Glock's motions to dismiss this case have been denied. Discovery is proceeding.

Edited February 4, 2026 at 06:05 AM by Euler

[Euler]

Some of the information is incomplete. For some of the cases, I don't know the sponsors, if there are any.

US v Carbajal-Flores
Carbajal-Flores has private lawyers. I doubt that he's paying them himself.

Solomon v Madigan - Usharovich, Libert, Sorosky
Zahareas v Raoul - Charles Dobra
These lawyers are unfamiliar to me. I doubt Solomon carried that case himself. I wouldn't be surprised if Zahareas is paying himself, though.

Langley v Kelly
Langley is using Maag.

Edited October 30, 2025 at 06:21 PM by Euler

[Yeti]

Wow, very interesting.  That provides a lot of perspective, thank you!!

[soundguy]

Great resource!

 

Cheers,

Tim

[JTHunter]

Fantastic work Euler !  Thanks ! 👍

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

Some others you may want to add or maybe I missed in the list, Chairez 2018, Johnson 2020, Webb 2019, 

[thepointbeing]

Excellent compilation, thanks very much.

 

Perhaps add Staples v United States, 1994, SCOTUS?

[Ranger]

Thanks Euler!

Edited March 26, 2025 at 01:38 PM by Ranger

[Euler]

I removed the following cases from the opening post since they never went anywhere, but I'll note them here if anyone still wants to know about them.

Marszalek v Kelly (2022)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2020

Sponsor: Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation

Synopsis: During the COVID-19 pandemic, FOID application processing exceeded its statutory maximum duration.

Status: Withdrawn (stipulated dismissal)

Singleton v Kelly (2023)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2020

Sponsor: Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation

Synopsis: During the COVID-19 pandemic, FOID and CCL appeals exceeded their statutory maximum duration.

Status: Withdrawn (stipulated dismissal)

Luce v Kelly (2022)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2021

Sponsor: Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation

Synopsis: During the COVID-19 pandemic, CCL application processing exceeded its statutory maximum duration.

Status: Withdrawn (stipulated dismissal)

[Yeti]

Thanks Euler, appreciate all the content and context you add to this site!

[TRussell]

Thank for compiling this all in one place. A lot of work has been done and even more remains to be.

[Tkman]

Thank you, this is my go to for a source of truth 

[BeardswithoutOperators]

Thank you!

[mauserme]

Some posts that aren't directly relevant to Illinois, but are directly relevant to Snope v Brown, have been moved the the latter topic.

 

 

 

 

[Euler]

I'm removing the following case from the opening post, since it's been terminated. If a motion to reconsider (or an appeal) reverses the termination, I'll add it back.

Mathews v Illinois (2025)

Filed: US District Court for Central Illinois, 2018 (as Powell v Illinois)

Sponsor: Brady United Against Gun Violence

Synopsis: Plaintiffs seek to compel Illinois State Police to adopt gun trafficking regulations on its own authority. Initially the justification was to eliminate violence subjecting black children to stress. As amended, the justification is to eliminate the diversion of legal firearms into illegal markets.

Status: Plaintiffs have tried and failed several times to have the case certified as a class action. The court heard oral arguments on March 12, 2025, on defense motions to dismiss the fourth amended complaint. The judge dismissed the case on June 13.

On July 14, Mathews appealed.
Edited July 28, 2025 at 03:30 AM by Euler

[Euler]

The opening post is new and improved with historical cases from Illinois courts: Johnson v ISP (as-applied FOID restoration after a domestic battery conviction), People v Chairez (facial unconstitutionality of the 1000-foot buffer zone around parks), and People v Webb (facial unconstitutionality of the taser/stun gun ban).

People v Webb seems particularly relevant, since there has recently been discussion on these forums about cops asserting that they will arrest people for carrying stun guns.

[Euler]

Brunke v Kelly (terminated)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2024

Sponsor: Illinois State Rifle Association

Synopsis: Four plaintiffs have had their FOIDs and CCLs revoked when Clear and Present Danger reports were filed on them, presumably by various police officers. They are seeking damages and to have a portion of the C&PD law declared unconstitutional.

Status: Plaintiffs stipulated dismissal on October 31, 2025.