Last updated November 2026 · By Nick Hall, who has read every filing in the Viramontes mootness fight since the October 29 motion
Quick take: Cook County filed its reply in the Supreme Court AR-15 case on November 13, and it wants the justices to ignore the two AR-15 declarations the challengers filed two days earlier. If Cutberto Viramontes leaves the case, the county says, the Court should dismiss it. The Court has not ruled on any of this.
- What happened: Cook County submitted its reply on mootness in Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238, on November 13, 2026.
- Why it matters: The county argues Christopher Khaya, the other individual petitioner, has no standing because the record never shows his IMI Galil is similar to an AR-15.
- What’s next: Argument is still set for Wednesday, December 2, 2026, with no order yet on Viramontes’ motion to leave or the county’s mootness request.
- Who to watch: Khaya and Ed Smolen, the two Cook County men whose new AR-15 declarations the county wants thrown out.
Last week this was a fight about one rifle. Now it is a fight about paperwork, and whether the challengers can add to the record at the Supreme Court. Sounds dry. It decides whether the Illinois half of the AR-15 case is still standing on December 2.
Deals of the Day
Today's best discounts · Updated 3x daily
Gun Deals
See All →
Ammo Deals
See All →
Table of Contents
What Cook County Filed on November 13
Quick recap. Viramontes asked out on October 29, Cook County asked the Court to toss the AR-15 case as moot on November 5, and the challengers answered that it is still alive on November 11, with sworn declarations from Khaya and a new name, Ed Smolen.
Two days later the county filed its reply, signed by Cook County State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke as counsel of record. It opens by saying the challengers’ response “confirms that the Court should dismiss the petition for certiorari because petitioners cannot establish standing without Cutberto Viramontes.”
It also needles them over the one thing nobody has explained. “Petitioners still do not explain why their lead plaintiff” wants out, the reply says. The ask hasn’t changed: “if Viramontes is removed from this case, this Court should dismiss this petition as moot or improvidently granted.” The second option is what lawyers call a DIG.
Why Cook County Says Khaya’s IMI Galil Cannot Carry the Case
“Petitioner Christopher Khaya lacks standing because there is no record evidence that he intends to use the IMI Galil for self defense,” the reply says, and no evidence that the Galil is “similar to” an AR-15. That matters because the question the Court agreed to decide covers “AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.”
The county points back to the challengers’ own words in the district court, where they said the Galil “is not an AR-15 style rifle.” Its verdict on their November 11 argument: “They now reverse course.”
It also goes after how they made that case: images from two websites and a list of shared features the county says “contains no citation at all.” Then it cites two 2026 web articles of its own to say the AR-15 and AK-47 platforms are “very different.”
So both sides are now having the oldest argument at any gun counter, with web links, inside a fight about what counts as record evidence. The county’s stronger point is the plainer one: “Petitioners do not explain how to define a weapon “class.””
The county answers the challengers’ ordinance point in one line. Yes, Cook County bans the Galil too, but “This Court did not grant review of the ordinance’s facial validity.”
The Fight Over the Khaya and Smolen Declarations
The county wants the Court to set aside both declarations because they were never in the record below. Khaya’s, it says, raises an AR-15 for the first time in five years of litigation, and Smolen “has never participated in this case.”
The first objection is procedural. Under Supreme Court Rule 32.3, a party that wants to lodge non-record material “must set out in a letter, served on all parties, a description of the material proposed for lodging and the reasons why the non-record material may properly be considered by the Court.” The county says that never happened.
The second objection reaches back to 1851. The reply quotes Russell v. Southard: “[a]ffidavits of newly-discovered testimony cannot be received.” It also says the Court has “consistently condemned” efforts to bring in facts outside the record, citing a Justice Thomas concurrence in Ross v. Blake.
Then it gets pointed. Had the declarations come in at the district court, the reply says, the county could have taken discovery on them, including asking Khaya why he first disclosed his desire to own an AR-15 five years into the suit, and the challengers never gave it that chance. Filing them now “smacks of “gamesmanship,”” the county says, and so does seeking Viramontes’ dismissal after the county filed its responsive brief.
The ask: “This Court should accordingly ignore the declarations for purposes of deciding whether petitioners satisfy Article III.” I think this is the county’s best argument in the whole exchange. It does not answer Smolen on the merits. It just says he showed up too late.
Where Viramontes v. Cook County Stands Before December 2
But a brief is advocacy, not a ruling. As of the November 13 update to the Supreme Court docket, the Court had not acted on Viramontes’ October 29 motion or the county’s November 5 suggestion of mootness, and the reply was listed as submitted. The consolidated cases are still set for argument on Wednesday, December 2, 2026.
Even the county keeps the off-ramp open. Its first footnote says “The parties agree that nothing in this briefing would affect the grant of certiorari in Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566,” the Connecticut challenge that carries the same AR-15 question.
Nothing changes for gun owners in the meantime. Cook County’s ordinance is still in force and state rules sit on top of it, laid out in our Illinois gun laws guide.
Three mootness briefs. One argument date. No order yet. The next word belongs to the justices.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Cook County argue in its November 13 reply?
That the challengers cannot show standing without Cutberto Viramontes, that Christopher Khaya's IMI Galil is not shown in the record to be similar to an AR-15, and that the Court should ignore the new Khaya and Smolen declarations. If Viramontes is removed, it asks the Court to dismiss the case as moot or as improvidently granted.
Why does Cook County say Christopher Khaya lacks standing?
The county says the record has no evidence that Khaya intends to use his IMI Galil for self-defense and no evidence that the Galil is similar to an AR-15. It points to the challengers' own statement in the district court that the Galil "is not an AR-15 style rifle."
Can parties add new evidence at the Supreme Court?
The Court decides cases on the record from the lower courts. Its Rule 32.3 lets a party ask to lodge non-record material, but only by letter, served on all parties, explaining what the material is and why the Court may properly consider it. Cook County says the challengers did not follow that rule.
What does dismissed as improvidently granted mean?
It means the Supreme Court drops a case it had agreed to hear without deciding the question presented, for example when the case turns out to be a poor vehicle for it. Lawyers shorten it to DIG.
Has the Supreme Court ruled on the Viramontes mootness question?
No. As of the November 13, 2026 docket update, the Court had not acted on Viramontes' October 29 motion to be dismissed or on Cook County's November 5 suggestion of mootness.
Would dismissing Viramontes v. Cook County end the AR-15 case?
No. Cook County's reply says the parties agree nothing in the mootness briefing affects the grant in Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566, the consolidated Connecticut case on the same AR-15 question.
When is the Supreme Court AR-15 argument?
The consolidated cases, Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, are set for argument on Wednesday, December 2, 2026.
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
- Viramontes Petitioners Tell SCOTUS AR-15 Case Isn’t Moot
- Supreme Court Takes the AR-15 Question Head On
- Cook County and Connecticut Defend AR-15 Bans at SCOTUS
- AK-47 vs AR-15: Which Rifle Is Better?
- Illinois Gun Laws: FOID Card, CCL and the Assault Weapons Ban
3,590+ Gun & Ammo Deals
Updated daily from 200+ top retailers. Filter by category, caliber, action type, and price.
Related Guides
