MARCH 31: Flowers adorn a garden in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building on March 31, 2026 in Washington, DC. The court found today that a Colorado law banning conversion therapy for gay and transgender minors likely violates free speech. (Photo by Roberto Schmidt/
The Supreme Court begins a new term Monday with major Second Amendment questions on its docket, while new disclosures about former special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation of President Donald Trump are fueling a separate debate over the scope of federal investigative power.
Among the most closely watched cases before the justices are challenges to state restrictions on AR-15-style rifles and large-capacity magazines.
The court agreed to hear challenges involving bans
The court agreed to hear challenges involving bans in Illinois and Connecticut, setting up what could become one of its most consequential Second Amendment decisions in years. The cases ask whether states can prohibit semiautomatic rifles commonly described in state law as assault weapons and magazines capable of holding more than a specified number of rounds.
Former federal prosecutor Jonathan Fahey joined The National News Desk to discuss the constitutional questions facing the court and what its eventual ruling could mean for gun owners.
“They are being asked to decide whether the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, protects people’s right to own things like AR-15s, which are euphemistically called assault rifles, high-capacity magazines,” Fahey said.
The cases come after years of litigation over how the Supreme Court’s previous gun-rights decisions apply to restrictions on particular types of firearms.
Fahey pointed to two landmark decisions that he
Fahey pointed to two landmark decisions that he believes could make it difficult for states to defend their bans.
The first is District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision recognizing an individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes such as self-defense in the home.
In that ruling, the court said the Second Amendment protects weapons “in common use” for lawful purposes while also making clear that the right is “not unlimited.”
Fahey argued that the large number of AR-15-style
Fahey argued that the large number of AR-15-style rifles owned by Americans strengthens the case against banning them.
“The Heller decision says you can’t ban things that are basically commonly owned or commonly used,” Fahey said.
Gun-rights groups estimate that tens of millions of modern sporting rifles are in civilian circulation in the United States. The National Shooting Sports Foundation has estimated more than 30 million such rifles have entered circulation since 1990. (nssf.org)
The second precedent Fahey highlighted is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that when
In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the government must demonstrate that a firearm regulation is consistent with the country’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. (supremecourt.gov)
“The other one is the Bruen decision,” Fahey said. “Do we have a historical precedent of a whole category of weapons being banned back then? And I don’t think you do.”
Supporters of assault-weapons restrictions argue that states have the constitutional authority to regulate firearms they contend pose exceptional risks to the public, particularly weapons capable of firing numerous rounds rapidly and frequently used in high-profile mass shootings.
Gun-rights advocates counter that AR-15-style rifles are commonly owned by millions of law-abiding Americans and therefore cannot constitutionally be banned.
Fahey said he expects the court’s conservative majority to ultimately side with gun owners.
I would expect it’ll be a 6-3
“I would expect it’ll be a 6-3 or 5-4 for the gun rights, for the gun owners,” Fahey said.
His prediction is only an assessment of how the justices could rule. The cases have not yet been decided.
The Supreme Court’s new term also includes significant disputes involving immigration, religious liberty and other questions about the scope of government power.
The interview then turned to another controversy over
The interview then turned to another controversy over federal authority: the scope of the investigation known as Arctic Frost.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, recently disclosed records showing investigators obtained thousands of checks written by Americans who donated to Trump or Republican-aligned organizations.
According to Grassley’s committee, Smith’s team obtained at least 4,782 checks from donors across all 50 states as part of the investigation. Some of the contributions were as small as $1.
The checks contained information that could include donors’
The checks contained information that could include donors’ names, addresses, bank account and routing numbers and signatures.
Grassley has accused Smith’s team of conducting an overly broad investigation that swept up ordinary Americans engaged in lawful political activity.
Fahey said the disclosures raise questions about how far investigators expanded beyond their original focus on Trump and efforts to challenge the 2020 election results.
It really didn’t seem like Jack Smith had
“It really didn’t seem like Jack Smith had any guardrails on his investigation,” Fahey said.
Arctic Frost began as an FBI investigation in 2022 before Smith was appointed special counsel by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland. It examined efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and ultimately became part of Smith’s investigation that resulted in federal charges against Trump.
Grassley’s committee says Arctic Frost eventually encompassed hundreds of Republican individuals and organizations, along with communications and records connected to members of Congress.
Fahey argued that obtaining records involving thousands
Fahey argued that obtaining records involving thousands of political donors appears disconnected from the investigation’s central question.
“He has this narrow focus on, sort of, did President Trump do something illegal [to] overthrow the 2020 election?” Fahey said. “And then he gets all the way into people that donated money to various groups.”
“It seems overly broad,” he added. “It seems like an abuse of power far beyond what he was looking at.”
The fact that investigators obtained donor records does
The fact that investigators obtained donor records does not establish that the individual donors were suspected of committing crimes or that they were targeted simply because of their political beliefs.
Federal investigators can obtain financial records through subpoenas when they believe those records are relevant to an authorized investigation. The central dispute is whether the scope of the records sought in Arctic Frost was justified by legitimate investigative needs.
Smith has repeatedly defended his investigation as based on evidence and federal law rather than political considerations.
During congressional testimony last week, Smith rejected allegations
During congressional testimony last week, Smith rejected allegations that his prosecution of Trump was politically motivated and defended the investigative decisions made by his team.
Republicans, however, have continued to release documents they say demonstrate the investigation extended far beyond Trump.
Fahey said one of his concerns is the potential chilling effect when the government obtains sensitive financial information connected to lawful political donations.
“You can make the argument that the overall goal of this was to taint all Republicans and also intimidate people from wanting to donate or be politically active,” Fahey said.
The controversy raises broader First Amendment questions about the government’s treatment of political activity.
Fahey argued that the line between legitimate law
Fahey argued that the line between legitimate law enforcement and government overreach is crossed when innocent people are harmed solely because of their political affiliation.
“I think the line is where people who have done nothing criminally, no criminal wrongdoing, are still being abused, still being harmed in the process just because of their political affiliation,” Fahey said.
Fahey also questioned the oversight Smith received from Garland.
Special counsels operate with a degree of independence, but Justice Department regulations still place them under the supervision of the attorney general and require them to comply with department rules, regulations and policies.
There were guardrails in place, Fahey said
“There were guardrails in place,” Fahey said. “There was the attorney general of the United States that didn’t rein him in.”
Fahey argued that prosecutors have substantial discretion, making internal oversight and professional restraint particularly important.
“Prosecutors have a lot of leeway, and a lot of times you have to rely on their own self-restraint,” Fahey said.
He accused Smith’s investigation of having a political
He accused Smith’s investigation of having a “political agenda, or at least a politically adjacent agenda.”
Smith has denied that allegation.
The former special counsel has maintained that his team’s decisions were driven by evidence and that Trump was charged because prosecutors believed the evidence established federal crimes, not because he was a Republican candidate or political opponent of the Biden administration.
The federal election case against Trump never reached trial. Smith moved to dismiss the prosecution following Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election, citing longstanding Justice Department policy against prosecuting a sitting president.
Fahey said the controversy surrounding Arctic Frost has
Fahey said the controversy surrounding Arctic Frost has nevertheless damaged confidence in federal law enforcement.
“It seems like so many people were caught in the crosshairs, and everything about this really seems more political than legal,” Fahey said.
“I think the whole system suffered because of it.”
6
NEWBond raised for man charged in Charleston arson investigation3
Work to begin Tuesday in first phase of I-64 Fort Hill Bridge project4
A gut punch in Ohio: Nearly 1,400 laid off at truck factory just days before Trump rally4
Early fall colors emerge along Charleston’s Sunrise Carriage Trail
