Introduction
In the opening weeks of 2025 the U.S. Supreme Court quietly turned away three Republican‑backed appeals that, taken together, would have tested the outer limits of two of the most polarized debates in American public life: how states regulate federal elections and how far they may restrict firearms.
-
In Jacobsen v. Montana Democratic Party, Montana’s Republican secretary of state asked the justices to revive two 2021 statutes—one ending Election‑Day registration, the other banning paid ballot collection—that her state’s highest court struck down. She framed the case as the Court’s next chance to flesh out the still‑unresolved contours of the “independent state‑legislature” theory. The justices declined to hear it. KECIU.S. News & World ReportMontana Free Press
-
On the same day, the Court denied certiorari in a consolidated pair of Second Amendment petitions challenging Delaware’s 2022 ban on certain semiautomatic rifles and high‑capacity magazines and Maryland’s decade‑old handgun‑qualification license. ReutersAP News
The orders list contained no written dissents, but each denial left intact lower‑court rulings that favored state authority—on voting procedures in Montana, on “assault‑weapon” and magazine restrictions in Delaware, and on licensing prerequisites for handguns in Maryland. Together they mark the Court’s latest refusal to accelerate conservative efforts to remake election administration and expand gun rights, even as the six‑justice conservative majority continues to shape both fields through other avenues.
This article unpacks the legal theories, statutory backstories, and broader implications of the Court’s January denials, situating them in the larger arc of recent Supreme Court jurisprudence—from Moore v. Harper on election law to New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen on guns.
1. The Independent‑State‑Legislature Theory: From Moore v. Harper to Jacobsen v. Montana
The independent‑state‑legislature (ISL) theory rests on a literalist reading of the Elections Clause, which provides that the “Times, Places and Manner” of federal elections “shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” Proponents contend that because the Constitution singles out the “Legislature,” neither state courts nor state executive actors may second‑guess election laws. Critics regard the theory as a structural threat to judicial review and a license for partisan gerrymandering and voter‑access rollbacks.
Although ISL ideas date to Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s concurrence in Bush v. Gore (2000), the modern test case was Moore v. Harper. In June 2023 the Court held 6‑3 that North Carolina’s courts did not overstep by striking down a legislature‑drawn congressional map. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged state courts’ authority to interpret their own constitutions but warned against “transgressing the ordinary bounds of judicial review.” SCOTUSblogAxios
Moore resolved the most aggressive form of ISL—under which state courts would be powerless—but it deliberately left open a “how far is too far?” question. What objective standard should federal judges apply when reviewing state‑court election decisions? Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurrence invited future petitions that squarely present the issue. Jacobsen aimed to be that vehicle.
2. Montana’s Election‑Day Registration and Ballot‑Collection Laws: Statutory Background
House Bill 176 ended Montana’s popular practice of allowing voters to register or update their information up to and including Election Day. House Bill 530 prohibited most third‑party ballot‑collection efforts on Election Day if collectors received any compensation. Sponsors argued both measures would reduce administrative strain and combat voter fraud; opponents said they disproportionately harmed Native American communities, first‑time voters, students, and elderly residents in the state’s vast rural counties.
After a nine‑day bench trial replete with expert testimony on travel distances, polling‑place lines, and historical ballot‑rejection rates, a state district court found the laws violated multiple provisions of the Montana Constitution, including guarantees of suffrage and equality. In September 2023 the Montana Supreme Court affirmed 5‑2, holding that the evidence showed the laws “severely” burdened fundamental voting rights without adequate justification. Montana Free Press
Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen, represented by Attorney General Austin Knudsen, sought U.S. Supreme Court review, contending that the Montana justices had arrogated to themselves a boundless new power: “the final and exclusive arbiter of all federal election legislation in Montana.” She insisted that Moore v. Harper blessed federal oversight to police such overreach and asked the justices to adopt a “clear and administrable” rule. Jacobsen’s petition attracted amicus briefs from 15 Republican attorneys general, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and America First Legal Foundation. KECI
By contrast, the Montana Democratic Party—joined by tribal organizations and youth‑voter groups—argued that Jacobsen offered no evidence of fraud and that the lower‑court record was more than sufficient to support the finding of undue burdens. No extraordinary federal question existed, they said, because the case turned largely on state constitutional grounds, a point that traditionally bars Supreme Court review. Montana Free Press
On January 21, 2025, the Court denied certiorari without comment, leaving the two statutes permanently enjoined and allowing same‑day registration and compensated ballot collection to continue. U.S. News & World Report
3. What the Montana Denial Signals About the Elections Clause
Read narrowly, the order means only that four justices were not ready to grant review. Read in context, it suggests the Court prefers to let the post‑Moore landscape settle in the lower courts before announcing an enforceable boundary line. Because Montana’s ruling rested on state constitutional provisions as well as factual findings, the justices may have viewed it as a poor vehicle for clarifying federal limits.
Election‑law scholars note that multiple appeals percolating in Ohio, Arizona, and North Carolina could present the cleaner federal questions Moore implied. For now, state courts remain free to apply their constitutions to voting‑rights disputes—so long as they do not stray so far from text, history, and precedent that federal oversight becomes necessary.
4. From Heller to Bruen: A Brief Tour of Modern Second Amendment Doctrine
In 2008 the Court recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller, striking down D.C.’s handgun ban. Two years later McDonald v. Chicago incorporated that right against the states. The next major milestone, NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022), adopted a strict “text, history, and tradition” test: any modern gun restriction must be shown to have an analogue deeply rooted in the Founding era or Reconstruction. Bruen led to a flood of litigation contesting everything from age‑based purchase limits to assault‑weapon bans.
Yet the Court has also displayed caution, denying scores of petitions while it observes how lower courts apply Bruen. That pattern resurfaced in the Delaware and Maryland denials, which came only months after the justices had already granted review in United States v. Rahimi, a domestic‑violence gun‑possession case argued in November 2024 and still pending.
5. Delaware’s Assault‑Weapon and Magazine Ban
5.1 Legislative and Litigation History
Delaware’s House Bill 450 and companion Senate Substitute 1 rode a wave of post‑Uvalde momentum in June 2022. The measures outlawed the sale, transfer, or importation of more than forty named semiautomatic rifles—including AR‑15 and AK‑type platforms—as well as any magazine capable of holding more than seventeen rounds. Pre‑existing weapons may be kept but not sold, and owners must secure them.
State residents, a licensed firearms dealer, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Second Amendment Foundation sued, arguing that AR‑15‑style rifles are in “common use” for lawful purposes and therefore fall squarely within Bruen’s protection. U.S. District Judge Richard Andrews disagreed, finding the challengers unlikely to succeed and refusing to issue a preliminary injunction in March 2023.
On appeal, a Third Circuit panel affirmed in January 2024, concluding that the plaintiffs had not met the high burden for emergency relief and that Delaware’s public‑safety rationale carried weight under Bruen’s historical‑analogue test. AP News
5.2 The Supreme Court Denial
After the en banc Third Circuit declined review, petitioners turned to the Supreme Court, but on January 13, 2025, the justices declined without comment to hear the case. Reuters The denial keeps Delaware’s ban in force during full merits adjudication—likely extending litigation for years.
Second Amendment advocates lamented that each month of delay allows states to entrench new restrictions. State officials countered that lower‑court consensus is forming: semiautomatic rifles with military styling may be regulated more strictly than handguns because they pose unique public‑safety risks. (Approx. 600 words)
6. Maryland’s Handgun‑Qualification License
6.1 The 2013 Firearm Safety Act
Passed months after the Sandy Hook massacre, Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act creates a two‑step system. To buy any handgun from a dealer, residents must first take four hours of safety training, submit fingerprints, and pass a background check to receive an HQL (Handgun Qualification License). A separate Wear and Carry Permit governs public carry, but the HQL prerequisite applies to all dealer purchases and many transfers.
6.2 Legal Challenge and Lower‑Court Rulings
Gun‑rights group Maryland Shall Issue, joined by individual would‑be purchasers, argued that the month‑long application process chillingly delays the exercise of a fundamental right. A district judge upheld the law in 2020. After Bruen, a Fourth Circuit panel initially struck it down, but the en banc court reversed by a 10‑5 vote in August 2024, characterizing the license as a “narrowly tailored, history‑consistent condition” analogous to 19th‑century surety bonds and militia enrollment lists. AP News
6.3 Supreme Court Response
The petitioners urged the justices to reverse, alleging that “a deprivation of Second Amendment rights necessarily constitutes irreparable injury” and requires preliminary injunctive relief. The Court, however, let the Fourth Circuit’s ruling stand, signaling that it will not micromanage every procedural gun case—particularly when government defendants can show historical support for registration or training regimes. Reuters
7. Why the Court Is Saying “No” (for Now)
Several factors explain the justices’ restraint:
-
Vehicle Problems – Each petition carried complications. Jacobsen hinged on state‑constitutional claims; Delaware’s challengers sought an emergency injunction rather than full merits review; Maryland’s record was shaped by post‑Bruen doctrinal flux.
-
Doctrinal Sequencing – After announcing large principles, the Court often waits for a circuit split before intervening again. Post‑Moore election cases and post‑Bruen gun cases have not yet produced entrenched splits.
-
Case Load Management – With divisive merits cases already on the docket (Rahimi on guns, Idaho v. United States on abortion travel, and several tech‑platform disputes), the Court may be pacing itself.
-
Institutional Legitimacy – Polling shows confidence in the Court at near‑historic lows. Strategic denials avoid fueling perceptions that the majority is racing to the right.
Legal conservatives counter that repeated denials invite judicial “nullification” by lower courts hostile to gun rights and deferential to election‑law plaintiffs. Progressives reply that denials reflect the ordinary operation of certiorari discretion and the value of incrementalism.
8. What Happens Next?
-
Election Laws – Watch Arizona, where the state supreme court may soon test ISL limits by invalidating a legislature‑approved mail‑ballot deadline. Another candidate is Ohio, where plaintiffs challenge strict photo‑ID requirements under the state constitution’s suffrage guarantee.
-
Gun Cases – The Court’s decision in Rahimi, expected by late June 2025, will clarify how Bruen’s historical test applies to firearm bans for dangerous individuals. Rahimi’s reasoning could influence pending petitions over magazine limits in Rhode Island and a fresh Seventh Circuit split on age restrictions.
-
Legislative Responses – Seeing the Court stand aside, blue states are likely to tighten magazine and rifle rules. Red states may double down on limiting ballot collection, as Georgia did in 2021, but they must craft records that survive state judicial scrutiny.
In short, the Court’s refusals do not end the debates; they merely relocate them—to legislatures, state courts, and lower federal tribunals.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s January denials underscore a paradox of the Roberts Court: a willingness to rewrite constitutional doctrine in blockbuster cases, paired with dexterous avoidance of follow‑up disputes that would force the justices to clarify—too quickly—where the outer boundary lies.
By leaving Montana’s Election‑Day registration and ballot‑collection protections intact, the Court affirmed that state courts remain key guardians of voting rights. By refusing to block Delaware’s assault‑weapon ban and Maryland’s handgun‑license regime, it signaled that Bruen’s originalism coexists, at least for now, with a measure of state experimentation in gun regulation.
Neither side of America’s culture wars won an unambiguous victory. Yet in the space between denials, legislatures, advocates, and lower courts received a message: the highest tribunal is in no rush to decide every frontier question. The hard work of democracy—drafting laws, building records, persuading judges—continues.
