I have previously written how Chicago and New York have been the gifts that keep giving for the gun rights community in supplying a line of flagrantly unconstitutional gun laws that have resulted in major wins before the Supreme Court. On December 2, 2026, the Supreme Court is poised to hear oral arguments in Viramontes et al. v. Cook County, Illinois, et al., on the constitutionality of another gun ban involving semi-automatic rifles. Cook County State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke has filed a last-minute effort to dismiss the case that may actually backfire in emphasizing the very aspect of the case with the greatest potential vulnerability for Chicago and gun control advocates.The case took a surprising turn recently when Viramontes asked to be removed as a party without explaining why he had changed his mind. Whatever the reason, he clearly does not want to be immortalized in what could be one of the most impactful Second Amendment cases in history.

Viramontes is one of two cases to be heard on the issue. The second case, Grant v. Higgins, is out of the Second Circuit. Again, the Second and Seventh Circuits are a case of rounding up the usual suspects challenging Second Amendment rights.

Burke filed a “Suggestion of Mootness.”

What Burke is arguing is that, if Viramontes is allowed to withdraw, the other individual petitioner, Christopher Khaya, lacks standing in the case. Viramontes unquestionably sought “to own a Smith and Wesson Military & Police AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle.” However, Khaya sought to purchase an IMI Galil which is not based on the AR-15 platform and falls outside of the question presented before the Court. She argues:

“Khaya has not stated that he wishes to own an AR-15. Instead, he ‘wants an IMI [Industrial Military Industries] Galil semiautomatic rifle.’ In district court, petitioners took care to explain that the IMI Galil weapon is not an AR-15-style weapon: While they initially “agreed with Defendant’s description of this weapon as” an ‘AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle,’ they later ‘amended their response’ to ‘clarif[y] that the firearm in question is not an AR-15 style rifle but is largely based on the AK-47 design.’

While the Cook County ordinance applies to AK47-style weapons, the question presented in this Court is specifically limited to ‘AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.'”

As a threshold matter, the reference to “similar semiautomatic rifles” would seem to give the Court ample “room at the elbows” for considering either platform.

Moreover, the Court has previously declined to drop cases with last-minute efforts by parties to bow out or moot cases.  Indeed, this has been something of a signature of gun control advocates in seeking to avoid review in past cases.

A similar situation presented itself last year in Little v. Hecox,  one of two cases on transgender athletes. After the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in its favor, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review. Hecox clearly did not like the prospects on appeal and sought to withdraw the case after the granting of certiorari, but District Court Judge David Nye denied that effort as coming too late.  The Court went on to rule on both cases.

More importantly, Burke’s effort could work to broaden rather than narrow the review of the Court. The filing may push the Court to reaffirm that the ruling applies to other platforms, not just the AR-15.

Burke argues that the Galil is not similar to the AR-15, is not in common use, and that Khaya said he would use it primarily at a gun range rather than for self-defense. She notably does not question whether both weapons are banned, which is a technical point that gun advocates have dismissed.

If successful, Burke hopes to force a cascading failure. By first taking out Viramontes, she wants to then take out Khaya and then challenge the standing of the organization plaintiffs, Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation.

It is unlikely to succeed, but even if successful, the effort would not prevent an eventual ruling given the companion case in Grant v. Higgins. 

Here is the filing: Suggestion of Mootness