“I am confident that the Third Circuit is sitting on the pending Cheeseman and Koons opinions, which it is writing, because they do not want SCOTUS to grant, vacate, and remand their work the way it did years ago with the Range decision. In short, the Third Circuit is running out the clock until the end of the Supreme Court’s term in June when the high court will issue it Wolford and Hemani opinions. And, I think the Second Amendment community will be happy when the wait is over.” – Professor Mark W. Smith, Four Boxes Diner Host

People have been asking, “What is going on with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the huge Second Amendment cases they have already heard?”

The Third Circuit has heard on two of the biggest Second Amendment cases in the country, and the silence is starting to feel deliberate. One is the consolidated en banc challenge to New Jersey’s “assault firearms” ban — Cheeseman v. Platkin and Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General New Jersey, argued en banc in October 2025. The other is the consolidated New Jersey sensitive-places cases of Koons v. Platkin and Siegel v. Platkin, argued a few months ago.

I have no inside information, but I have a strong suspicion about what is occurring, and it is grounded in something the Third Circuit recently experienced with the Bryan Range v. United States case.

Two Arguments, Two Long Silences

Start with the assault weapons fight. Cheeseman and ANJRPC present a consolidated challenge to New Jersey’s ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. That argument occurred on October 2025 — just days after the Senate confirmed law professor Jennifer Mascott to the Third Circuit. The full active court of the Third Circuit, which covers Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the U.S. Virgin Islands and sits in Philadelphia, heard the case. The court has not yet issued its decision.

So too with the “sensitive-places” fight. Koons and Siegel are post-Bruen challenges to the New Jersey statute signed within days of Bruen that turned libraries, museums, public transit, beaches, movie sets, hospitals, casinos, and a long list of other places into government-mandated gun-free zones for licensed concealed carriers. The full Third Circuit heard that case en banc on February 11, 2026. Again, silence.

Why I Think the Third Circuit is Waiting

By the end of this Supreme Court term — between now and the first days of July — SCOTUS is going to decide two huge Second Amendment cases: Wolford v. Lopez, the Hawaii no-carry default rule (the “vampire rule”) challenge arising from Hawaii, and United States v. Hemani, which concerns the 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) drug-user prohibitor law. Wolford may speak to issues touching on the so-called “sensitive places” doctrine. Hemani may sharpen how lower courts must apply Bruen’s “text first, history second” test to prohibited persons under § 922(g). Both cases potentially overlap with what the Third Circuit is being asked to decide in Cheeseman/ANJRPC and in Koons/Siegel.

If I am sitting on the Third Circuit and I know that two Supreme Court decisions potentially touching upon issues presented in the case I am now deciding, then I would not rush my opinions out the door to have them only vacated by SCOTUS for further consideration in light of Wolford and Hemani. I would instead wait for SCOTUS.

This Pattern Already Played Out in the Bryan Range Case

This is not theory. The Third Circuit just got burned doing exactly that in Range v. United States. The first en banc opinion in Range came down on June 6, 2023 — the court held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as applied to Bryan Range, a man who decades earlier had pleaded guilty to a nonviolent Pennsylvania misdemeanor for misstating income on a food-stamp application. A Jean Valjean situation, frankly.

Then the Supreme Court decided United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), upholding § 922(g)(8) under the “text first, history second” framework. The Justices promptly granted certiorari in Range, vacated the en banc decision, and remanded so the Third Circuit could reassess the case in light of Rahimi. Months of work, redone. The Third Circuit then issued a second en banc opinion on December 23, 2024 — Range v. Attorney Gen. United States, 124 F.4th 218 (3d Cir. 2024) — again ruling for Bryan Range, this time threading the Rahimi citations throughout the analysis so that the Supreme Court would have nothing left to complain about. The Trump Administration did not seek cert in Range thus leaving in place the Third Circuit’s ruling.

That is the receipt. The judges on the Third Circuit lived it, and they remember. They are looking at each other and asking, quite reasonably, why would we publish Cheeseman or Koons now only to have to redo the work in a few months when Wolford and Hemani arrive.

My Prediction

So here is my prediction. Do not expect en banc decisions out of the Third Circuit in Cheeseman/ANJRPC or in Koons/Siegel until the Supreme Court goes home for the summer. Probably sometime in late July or early August is my best guess. When the Third Circuit finally issues its rulings, expect those opinions to sprinkle in citations to Wolford and Hemani. That is the entire point of the wait. It allows the panel say, in advance, that whatever the Supreme Court decided was already accounted for, which is how you immunize an en banc decision against another GVR (grant, vacate, and remand) by SCOTUS.

I could be totally wrong, but this is how I read the silence. The Third Circuit is not asleep. The Third Circuit is waiting. And I suspect that if you support the Second Amendment, then the wait will be worth it.

Wolford and Hemani: Supreme Court Decisions in Second Amendment Cases Expected Soon

Why the US Supreme Court Skipped AR-15s This Term — And Why It’s Coming

About Mark W Smith

Constitutional attorney and bestselling author Mark W. Smith hosts the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment channel on Youtube and Rumble; is a member of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar; and his Second Amendment scholarship has been cited by many attorneys and judges, including by attorneys in legal briefs submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court. Professor Smith’s most recent book is ISRAEL DISARMED: What the October 7 Attack Teaches Americans about the Right to Bear Arms and he has lectured at Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, Princeton University, the Wharton School at U. Penn, and Oxford University. He is a frequent speaker at the Federalist Society’s Annual National Lawyers Convention in Washington, D.C.

• @fourboxesdiner
• On The Web