Charles Nichols' Substack

The first round is over. The petitioners have filed their brief on the merits, and over 40 Amicus briefs were filed in support of the petitioners, or in support of neither party. In Round 2, the respondents will file their brief on the merits. We can expect a number of anti-Second Amendment groups to file Amicus briefs in support of the respondents. Charles Nichols' Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

There are many problems with AI. Not the least of which is AI, instead of saying, “I don’t know” or begining with “According to...” it speaks with authority, which is enough for the great unwashed to accept as gospel.

I often get eyerolls, even from lawyers, because of my fixation on procedural law. But long before I filed my California Open Carry lawsuit in 2011, I knew that one does not win a lawsuit because he has the facts, law and Constitution on his side, one loses a lawsuit by making a fatal procedural error. My not making a fatal procedural error, in addition to having the facts, law, and Constitution on my side has kept my lawsuit in court these past fifteen years.

The United States typically does one of two things in response to a cert petition. It either files a short response in opposition that is either boilerplate, or it does not file a response. The end result is the same, the cert petition is denied. In the case of Isaiah Jaqjan Fisher, Petitioner v. United States1 a justice (probably Justice Thomas) requested a response.

On July 16th, 2026, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an Order denying the en banc petition to rehear Knife Rights Inc. v. Bonta. I did not get around, until a few days ago, to reading the Order, which included a dissent by Judge VanDyke, and a dissent by Judge Tung that was joined by Judges Callahan, R. Nelson, Collins, Lee, Bress, Bumatay, and VanDyke. President Trump’s appointees Bennett, Miller, Bade, and Forrest did not dissent. Judges R. Nelson, Lee, Miller and Bade sit on the Baird v.

Audio playback is not supported on your browser. Please upgrade. Oral argument in the First Circuit Court of Appeals took place this morning in Michael O’Neil, et al. v. Peter F. Neronha, et al. Ten minutes were allocated to each side, which is generally not a good sign, as that indicates the panel had already made up its mind. However, the oral argument ran long and lasted for nearly thirty minutes.

A common mistake that most people make is that they believe others know what they know and that most people believe what they believe. If you believe the Supreme Court will rule that machine guns are arms protected by the Second Amendment, I recommend revisiting the oral arguments and opinions in Cargill and Vanderstock. Then read the opinions in both cases as if you were the proverbial man from Mars.

EDIT: “ELECTRONIC ORDER: Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 2] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature. At the time the Motion was filed on July 22, 2026, Defendant Robert P. Hodges had not yet appeared in this matter. A summons was issued to Defendant on July 23, 2026, and proof of service was filed on July 29, 2026.

It has been 18 years since the United States Supreme Court published its first in-depth opinion on the Second Amendment. If you had asked an actuary to give you the probability of all nine justices still being on the Court in 18 years, he would have given you a number very close to zero. If you were to ask the same question today, that number would be even closer to zero. I can’t tell you how the Second Amendment will be interpreted by the justices who sit on the Court 18 years from now.

O’Neil v. Neronha (25-1814). This case is presently scheduled to be called for oral argument on Thursday, July 30, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Boston, MA in the Panel Courtroom at the Moakley Courthouse, 7th Floor. The case was rescheduled at the request of the plaintiffs-appellants and will presumably be heard before the same three-judge panel that was calendared to hear it last month. If so, Circuit Judge Joshua Dunlap (a Trump nominee) and two Democrats will be on the panel.