On September 2, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit delivered a decision with wide-reaching implications for gun rights and public safety in Illinois. In a ruling that has already sparked debate across the state and beyond, the three-judge panel upheld Illinois’ ban on carrying firearms on public transit, overturning a lower court’s determination that the restriction violated the Second Amendment.
The case, officially titled Schoenthal v. Raoul, centered on whether Illinois residents with concealed carry permits could legally bring their firearms onto public buses and trains. Four plaintiffs, all concealed carry license holders—three from suburban Chicago and one from DeKalb County—had successfully argued in August 2024 before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois that the ban infringed on their constitutional rights. Their victory, however, was short-lived.
Judge Joshua Kolar, writing the majority opinion for the Seventh Circuit’s three-judge panel, stated, “The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to self-defense. It does not bar the people’s representatives from enacting laws—consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of regulation—that ensure public transportation systems remain free from accessible firearms.” Kolar went on to note, “We are asked whether the state may temporarily disarm its citizens as they travel in crowded and confined metal tubes unlike anything the Founders envisioned. We draw from the lessons of our nation’s historical regulatory traditions and find no Second Amendment violation in such a regulation.” According to Chicago Tribune, the court’s decision was delivered in Chicago and concurred by Judges Kenneth Ripple and Amy St. Eve, who represent a mix of presidential appointments spanning decades and political parties.
The legal debate drew heavily on the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established that modern gun restrictions must be “relevantly similar” to those that existed in the late 18th century. The lower court, presided over by Judge Iain Johnston, had applied this standard and found no historical precedent for banning firearms on public transit—largely because such modes of transportation simply didn’t exist when the Bill of Rights was written. Yet, the Seventh Circuit took a broader view, emphasizing the longstanding tradition of prohibiting weapons in so-called “sensitive places.”
“Sensitive places ‘where weapons were altogether prohibited’ in the 18th and 19th centuries also include ‘legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses,’” the appeals panel wrote, as reported by Chicago Tribune. “At the time, there was no dispute that these rules were legal … Thus, ‘courts can use analogies to those historical regulations of ‘sensitive places’ to determine that modern regulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new and analogous sensitive places are constitutionally permissible.’”
The Illinois ban on carrying guns on public transit was enacted in 2013, when the state became the last in the nation to allow concealed carry in public. The same law also prohibited firearms in places like government buildings, hospitals, public arenas, and stadiums. According to Fox News, the appeals court found that “historical crowded place restrictions functioned in much the same way, and when those historical regulations differed, it was often due to earlier generations placing an even greater restriction on individuals carrying firearms.” The ruling further noted, “Americans in the Founding era, and through Reconstruction, accepted that their Second Amendment rights weakened in certain spaces.”
Judge Amy St. Eve, appointed by President Donald Trump, wrote a separate concurring opinion highlighting a complex jurisdictional issue: “I write separately to highlight a difficult jurisdictional question that today’s opinion prudently reserves for a future case: how to assess redressability where a plaintiff defines her injury as the inability to engage in protected activity—not the threat of prosecution for doing so—and an unchallenged law also prohibits that precise activity.”
The state’s legal defense was led by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul. A spokesperson for his office told the Chicago Tribune, “We are pleased with this decision,” but declined further comment. Meanwhile, David Sigale, attorney for the plaintiffs, expressed disappointment, saying, “The plaintiffs were disappointed and disagree with the Court’s ruling, and we are currently weighing the available options for further review.”
The plaintiffs now face the choice of requesting an en banc review by the full Seventh Circuit or appealing directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. According to Breitbart News, legal observers expect the case to continue, given the high stakes and the ongoing national debate over gun rights and public safety.
This ruling comes amid a series of legal challenges to Illinois’ firearms laws. Most notably, the state’s 2023 ban on so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines was enacted after the tragic 2022 Highland Park Fourth of July parade shooting, which left seven people dead and dozens injured. That law, too, has faced legal scrutiny but has so far survived major court challenges. Additionally, Illinois’ longstanding requirement for residents to obtain a firearm owner’s identification card (FOID) has been contested in state courts.
Public reaction to the Seventh Circuit’s decision has been predictably divided. Gun rights advocates argue that the ruling undermines the constitutional right to self-defense, especially for those who rely on public transportation and may feel vulnerable. They point to the practical reality that crime can and does occur on buses and trains, and that law-abiding citizens should not be stripped of the means to protect themselves simply because they are commuting.
On the other side, supporters of the ban—including many public officials and gun control advocates—applaud the court’s emphasis on public safety and the recognition that densely packed transit environments are fundamentally different from other public spaces. They argue that the presence of firearms in such settings increases the risk of accidental discharge, escalation during disputes, and challenges for law enforcement responding to emergencies. As Judge Kolar noted, the design and function of modern public transit—“crowded and confined metal tubes unlike anything the Founders envisioned”—pose unique challenges that justify regulation.
The Seventh Circuit’s decision also underscores the evolving nature of Second Amendment jurisprudence. While the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision set a high bar for modern gun restrictions, lower courts are now tasked with interpreting what constitutes a “historical tradition” of firearm regulation. The Illinois transit ban, according to the Seventh Circuit, fits squarely within that tradition, even if the specific context—subway trains and city buses—would have been unimaginable to the Framers.
For now, Illinois’ ban on carrying firearms on public transit remains in effect, joining similar restrictions in other states and cities across the country. As the legal battle continues, the case stands as a vivid example of the ongoing struggle to balance individual rights with collective safety in an ever-changing society.
With both sides preparing for the next round of legal arguments, the fate of Illinois’ public transit gun ban—and potentially similar laws nationwide—hangs in the balance, watched closely by advocates, lawmakers, and everyday commuters alike.
