Cases compared
Cutberto Viramontes, et al., Petitioners v. Cook County, Illinois, et al. vs. Kendrick Jarrell Beaird, Petitioner v. United States vs. Samuel Storey v. United States
Gun Rights cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
No. 25-238No. 25-5343No. 25-7216
Side by side
| Fact | Cutberto Viramontes, et al., Petitioners v. Cook County, Illinois, et al. | Kendrick Jarrell Beaird, Petitioner v. United States | Samuel Storey v. United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-238 | 25-5343 | 25-7216 |
| Status | Before Arguments | Before Arguments | Before Arguments |
| Date | Argued Dec 2, 2026 | Argued Oct 13, 2026 | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) |
| Question presented | Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. | Whether Stinson v. United States, 508 U. S. 36 (1993), still correctly states the rule for the deference that courts must give the commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines? | 1. Can a court of appeals disregard the government’s deliberate waiver of whether a jury trial right violation is harmless in the enhanced statutory penalty context and affirm over the government’s request that the defendant be resentenced without statutory enhancement? 2. Should the Court overrule Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999), as inconsistent with Fifth and Sixth Amendment principles underlying this Court’s precedent in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and its progeny? 3. Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) exceed Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, facially and as applied to Petitioner Samuel Storey’s intrastate possession? |
| Summary | This case challenges Cook County, Illinois’s ban on the possession, sale, and transfer of certain semiautomatic firearms, including AR-15-style rifles. The Supreme Court will decide whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to possess those rifles. | Kendrick Beaird pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, and the district court increased his sentencing range based on Sentencing Guidelines commentary defining a “large capacity magazine.” The Supreme Court will decide whether courts must still follow the deference rule for Guidelines commentary stated in Stinson v. United States. | Samuel Storey asks the Supreme Court to review his federal firearms conviction and enhanced sentence. He argues that the Eleventh Circuit should not have found a jury-trial error harmless after the government waived that argument and sought resentencing, that the Court should reconsider its harmless-error rule in Neder, and that the federal felon-in-possession law exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause power as applied to purely intrastate possession. |
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Gun Rights
- Why compared
- Reviewed Gun Rights tags connect these current-term public cases.
Related
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.