Head-to-head
Katherine Novotny, et al., Petitioners v. Wes Moore, Governor of Maryland, et al. vs. Jonathan Granado, Petitioner v. Juanita Ramirez, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Estevan Ramirez vs. Cutberto Viramontes, et al., Petitioners v. Cook County, Illinois, et al.
Gun Rights cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
The matchup
Docket 25-1324Katherine Novotny, et al., Petitioners v. Wes Moore, Governor of Maryland, et al.Before argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-1338Jonathan Granado, Petitioner v. Juanita Ramirez, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Estevan RamirezBefore argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-238Cutberto Viramontes, et al., Petitioners v. Cook County, Illinois, et al.Before argumentArgued Dec 2, 2026
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Gun Rights
- Why compared
- Reviewed Gun Rights tags connect these current-term public cases.
Questions presented
- Katherine Novotny, et al., Petitioners v. Wes Moore, Governor of Maryland, et al.
- Whether Maryland’s numerous prohibitions on carrying firearms in many places frequented by the general public violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments?
- Jonathan Granado, Petitioner v. Juanita Ramirez, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Estevan Ramirez
- 1. Whether Officer Jonathan Granado’s use of deadly force on September 3, 2021 violated the Fourth Amendment when, after a high-speed chase, Estevan Ramirez emerged from the vehicle with gun in hand, refused an order to “get on the ground,” physically resisted an officer’s attempt to arrest, and attempted to escape towards the darkness of a residential neighborhood with gun still in hand. a. Did the panel correctly set forth the elements of an excessive force claim? b. Did the panel invert the qualified immunity analysis by shifting the burden from Ramirez to Officer Granado? c. Does the panel’s approach to qualified immunity force officers “to play roulette with their own existence”? 2. Whether any court other than the Supreme Court can clearly establish the law for purposes of qualified immunity, and if so, whether the panel majority correctly identified the clearly established law applicable to this case. 3. Whether this Court should resolve the controversies regarding qualified imm.
- Cutberto Viramontes, et al., Petitioners v. Cook County, Illinois, et al.
- Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.
Go deeper
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.