Last updated November 2026 · By Nick Hall, who has followed the AR-15 cases from the cert grant through both sides of the mootness fight
Quick take: The gun owners challenging Cook County’s AR-15 ban told the Supreme Court on November 11 that their case is still alive, even if lead plaintiff Cutberto Viramontes walks away. They backed it up with two sworn declarations from Cook County residents who want AR-15s, and the December 2 argument is still on the calendar.
- What happened: The petitioners in Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238, submitted a response to the county’s suggestion of mootness on November 11, 2026.
- Why it matters: They argue the question the Court took covers AK-47-style rifles like Christopher Khaya’s IMI Galil, and they put two AR-15 declarations on the record anyway.
- What’s next: The Court has not ruled on the Viramontes motion or the county’s request, and argument is still set for Wednesday, December 2, 2026.
- Who to watch: Ed Smolen, a Cook County member of both gun groups who says he owns an AR-15 he keeps out of state.
If the justices buy Cook County’s theory, the Illinois half of the AR-15 fight could fall away a few weeks before argument. If they buy this response, Viramontes leaving changes nothing. I read the whole brief and both declarations, and the county now has a harder job than it did last week.
Deals of the Day
Today's best discounts · Updated 3x daily
Gun Deals
See All →
Ammo Deals
See All →
Table of Contents
What the Viramontes Petitioners Filed on November 11
Last week Cook County asked the Supreme Court to toss the AR-15 case as moot if Viramontes is allowed to leave it. On November 11 the challengers answered with a response to the suggestion of mootness, signed by counsel of record David H. Thompson of Cooper & Kirk. The same lawyers represent the Connecticut challengers in the companion case.
The opening line sets the tone. “Respondent Cook County’s suggestion of mootness (“Sugg.”) is phrased in jurisdictional terms, but it is really an argument about the scope of the question presented.” Put plainly, the county isn’t saying nobody in the case has a stake. It is saying the man left standing wants the wrong rifle.
Viramontes himself doesn’t appear in the response at all. The county had asked the Court to make him file a sworn declaration that he still counts. The answer: “No declaration from Viramontes is necessary: Associational standing has rested from the outset on Khaya as well.”
The ask at the end is one sentence. “The Court should deny Cook County’s request to dismiss the case as moot or improvidently granted.”
Why the IMI Galil Fits the AR-15 Question Presented
The question the Court agreed to decide reads “Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.” The petitioners hang most of the brief on the last three words. “If “similar semiautomatic rifles” meant only AR-15 variants, the phrase would do no work, because “AR-15 platform” would already cover those firearms.”
On similarity, the brief points to shared features, “including pistol grips, the ability to support adjustable or folding stocks, and the ability to accept detachable magazines,” and runs pictures of a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 and a Galil to show the resemblance. The two rifles come from different family trees, which is the whole point of every AK-47 vs AR-15 argument at a gun counter. The brief says lineage is not what the Court asked about.
Then it turns the county’s own law against it. The ordinance lists the AR-15, the AK-47 and the Galil by name, and the brief’s best line follows: “The County cannot treat these rifles as interchangeable for purposes of regulation but somehow meaningfully different for purposes of this litigation.”
The petitioners also say the county called the Galil an “AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle” at summary judgment, and that its merits brief defined every rifle banned by name, the AR-15, AK-47 and Galil among them, as “AR-15 platform weapons.” Their conclusion is that the county “has waived, or at least forfeited, any argument that the AK-47-based Galil is not similar to the AR-15.”
The county’s two side points get short shrift. On rarity, the brief says the county “improperly zeros in on a specific model of semiautomatic rifle, rather than focusing on the class of firearms targeted by the ban.” On Khaya saying he would most likely use the Galil at the range, it says “target shooting is also a lawful purpose.”
The Two Declarations That Put the AR-15 Back in Viramontes v. Cook County
Appendix A is a supplemental declaration from Christopher Khaya, dated October 21, 2026. He still wants the Galil, and he adds this: “One additional such firearm is a semiautomatic AR-15 platform rifle, which I would acquire and possess in Cook County were it lawful for me to do so.”
Then a new name. Appendix B is a declaration from Ed Smolen, who says he has lived in Elmwood Park, in Cook County, since 2000 and is a member of both the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation. “I have owned an AR-15 platform semiautomatic rifle since 2011 but keep it out of state,” he writes, and he would keep it at home “for lawful purposes including self-defense” if the law let him.
That lands right on the county’s standing argument against the two groups, which said they “identified only two members in all of Cook County: Viramontes and Khaya.” Smolen is a third, signed November 10, 2026. The brief cites a Sixth Circuit case explaining that associational standing can be kept alive “after the original member’s claim is extinguished by identifying some other named member who would have a live claim in his own right.”
I think this is the strongest part of the response, because the county spent its filing painting the Galil as an oddball collector’s rifle that a lone plaintiff wants mostly for range trips, and the petitioners answered by putting two Cook County men who want AR-15s on the record, one of whom has owned one since 2011. It takes the vehicle argument away. The Galil fight can stay academic.
Where the Supreme Court AR-15 Case Stands Before December 2
But none of this is a ruling. As of the November 11 update to the Supreme Court docket, the Court had not acted on Viramontes’ October 29 motion to be dismissed, on the county’s November 5 suggestion of mootness, or on this response. The consolidated cases are still set for argument on Wednesday, December 2, 2026.
One thing did move this week. On November 9 the Court granted the Solicitor General’s motion for leave to take part in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument. The United States has filed a brief supporting the petitioners, and its motion asked for 20 minutes for petitioners, 10 for the United States and 30 for respondents.
Both sides now agree on the fallback, too. The response’s only footnote says “The County correctly concedes that even if this case were dismissed as moot or improvidently granted, the Court could still decide the same question presented in the consolidated case.” That case is Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566, the Connecticut challenge.
Nothing changes for Cook County gun owners in the meantime. The ordinance still bars the rifles it names, and the state rules sit on top of it, laid out in our Illinois gun laws guide. Viramontes wants out. The AR-15 is staying in.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Viramontes v. Cook County?
It is the Supreme Court challenge to Cook County, Illinois' ban on so-called assault weapons, No. 25-238, brought by individual gun owners plus the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation. The Court agreed on June 30, 2026 to decide whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.
Is the Supreme Court AR-15 case moot?
No court has said so. Cook County suggested on November 5, 2026 that the case should be dismissed if Cutberto Viramontes is allowed to leave it, and the petitioners answered on November 11 that a live controversy remains. As of November 11, the Court had not ruled on either filing.
What did the petitioners argue in their mootness response?
That the county's filing is really about the scope of the question presented, that the IMI Galil is one of the "similar semiautomatic rifles" the question covers, and that two declarations show the AR-15 is still at issue without Viramontes.
Is the IMI Galil an AR-15?
No. Christopher Khaya's own declaration says that while the Galil "incorporates elements of the AR-15 design, it is largely based on the AK-47." The petitioners argue it still counts as a similar semiautomatic rifle, and Cook County's ordinance bans both by name.
Who is Ed Smolen?
A resident of Elmwood Park, in Cook County, and a member of the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation. His declaration says he has owned an AR-15 since 2011, keeps it out of state, and would keep it at home in Cook County if that were lawful.
What happens if the Court dismisses the Viramontes case?
Both sides agree the Court could still decide the same question in the consolidated Connecticut case, Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566. The AR-15 question would not go away with the Illinois case.
When is the Supreme Court AR-15 argument?
The consolidated cases are set for argument on Wednesday, December 2, 2026. On November 9 the Court granted the Solicitor General leave to argue as amicus curiae in support of the petitioners.
Is the Cook County assault weapons ban still in effect?
Yes. The ordinance stays in force while the Supreme Court case is pending, and Illinois state law applies on top of it.
Related Reading
- Cook County Asks SCOTUS to Toss the AR-15 Case as Moot
- Supreme Court Takes the AR-15 Question Head On
- Cook County and Connecticut Defend AR-15 Bans at SCOTUS
- 18 States and DC Back AR-15 Bans at the Supreme Court
- NJ Gun Groups Agree SCOTUS Should Hold AR-15 Ban Case
- Connecticut Gun Laws: Permits, Carry Rules and Restrictions
3,249+ Gun & Ammo Deals
Updated daily from 200+ top retailers. Filter by category, caliber, action type, and price.
Related Guides
