NFA update

Anderson v. Raoul Explained: The Illinois Suppressor Ban Goes to the Seventh Circuit

By Cole Harlan, EditorUpdated Oct 25, 2026How we verifyEditorial standards

On Wednesday, October 28, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit hears Anderson v. Raoul, the consolidated Second Amendment challenge to Illinois's ban on possessing a "firearm silencer." A federal judge threw the case out in September 2025, ruling the plaintiffs hadn't plausibly shown that suppressors are "arms." The appeal turns on a single threshold question, and its answer could shape suppressor cases in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. Here's what's at stake, using the court's own calendar and the parties' briefs.

Not legal advice. This explainer summarizes court records and briefs as of the date above. Suppressor possession is still a felony in Illinois today, and nothing changes unless and until a court rules and its judgment takes effect.

The case at a glance

Item	Detail
Court	U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Case numbers	25-2642 (Anderson v. Raoul) and 25-2663 (Morse v. Raoul), consolidated
Lower court	S.D. Ill. Nos. 3:23-cv-00728 and 3:22-cv-02740, Judge David W. Dugan
Law challenged	720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(6), possession of a firearm silencer
Plaintiffs	Carlin Anderson, Dave Clark, Larry Morse and Theodore Ray Buck, Jr.
Defendants	Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, the Illinois State Police director and county state's attorneys
Argument	Oct. 28, 2026, 9:30 a.m., DeKalb, Illinois; 15 minutes allowed; third case on the calendar
Panel	"TBD" on the court's calendar when we checked Oct. 25, 2026. The court posts panel names one hour before argument.

The law being challenged

Illinois has banned the possession of firearm silencers for more than 60 years. The state's brief quotes the statute's definition: "any device or attachment of any kind designed, used or intended for use in silencing the report of any firearm." Possession is a Class 3 felony. See our Illinois suppressor law guide for the statute text, the hunting ban and what ATF's October 9 change does and doesn't mean in Illinois.

How the case got here

November 25, 2022: Morse v. Raoul filed in the Southern District of Illinois.
February 27, 2023: Anderson v. Raoul filed, backed by the American Suppressor Association Foundation and Silencer Shop. The court later consolidated the two cases.
June 26, 2023: The state moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the claims fail at the first step of the Bruen test because suppressors aren't "Arms."
September 5, 2025: Judge Dugan granted the state's motion. Judgment was entered September 8, 2025.
September 17 and 22, 2025: The two sets of plaintiffs filed notices of appeal.
May 4, 2026: Illinois filed its appellee brief.
June 10, 2026: The plaintiffs filed their reply brief, completing briefing.
October 28, 2026: Oral argument.

What the district court held

According to the state's own summary of the ruling, Judge Dugan concluded the plaintiffs hadn't plausibly alleged "that silencers [were] 'arms' as that term was understood in the eighteenth century." The court said the plaintiffs hadn't shown suppressors were analogous to historical arms, or offered authority that a device used with a firearm is itself an "arm," and that being "useful" didn't make them constitutionally protected. The court never reached Bruen's second step, the historical-tradition test.

What Illinois argues

The state's brief frames the issue as "Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the Second Amendment's plain text covers the possession of firearm silencers." It argues:

Suppressors aren't "Arms," and the Framers protected "Arms," not "Arms and accoutrements."
The Amendment implicitly protects only what's necessary to exercise the right, and the plaintiffs can use firearms without suppressors.
If the court disagrees, it should send the case back rather than enter judgment for the plaintiffs, because the state didn't waive a historical-tradition defense.

What the plaintiffs argue

The plaintiffs' reply brief says the state "cannot establish that its suppressor ban is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." Their main points:

It's about conduct. Bruen and Rahimi ask whether the text covers a person's conduct. "Suppressors have no purpose save for their use with firearms," so banning them regulates how people keep and bear arms.
"Necessary" is the wrong test. "No firearm component is strictly necessary, and alternatives always exist." They propose asking whether an item is "designed to facilitate the use or affect the functionality of an arm."
The Bevis test. Under the Seventh Circuit's own Bevis v. City of Naperville (2023), they argue suppressors "are commonly possessed for lawful purposes by millions of Americans," "do not transform firearms into military weapons" and "are rarely used in crime."
The remedy. They ask the court to reverse and order judgment for them, as it did in Moore v. Madigan (2012), the case that struck down Illinois's carry ban.

Why it matters beyond Illinois

Another circuit has already spoken. On June 18, 2026 the Fifth Circuit held in United States v. Comeaux that suppressors are "Arms," though it affirmed the conviction. A Seventh Circuit ruling that they aren't would put the two circuits at odds. See our NFA lawsuits tracker.
Eight states ban suppressors. The state's brief lists California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island, plus D.C. A win for the plaintiffs binds only courts in the Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin), but it would be cited in challenges to the others, including New York's.
Federal law is a separate track. ATF stopped enforcing NFA registration for suppressors on October 9, 2026, and the Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF case challenges the NFA itself. Neither touches state bans like Illinois's.

What happens after argument

The Seventh Circuit doesn't set a deadline for decisions. The court could affirm, reverse and enter judgment for the plaintiffs, or vacate and remand for the historical-tradition analysis the state asked to preserve. Whoever loses can seek rehearing en banc or Supreme Court review. Until then, possessing a suppressor in Illinois remains a Class 3 felony. We'll update this page when the court rules.

Frequently asked questions

When is the Anderson v. Raoul oral argument?

The Seventh Circuit's calendar lists argument for Wednesday, October 28, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in DeKalb, Illinois, with 15 minutes allowed. The panel was listed as "TBD" on October 25, 2026.

What did the district court decide?

On September 5, 2025, Judge David W. Dugan granted Illinois judgment on the pleadings, concluding the plaintiffs hadn't plausibly alleged that suppressors are "arms" as understood in the eighteenth century. Judgment was entered September 8, 2025.

What is the main question on appeal?

Illinois frames it as whether the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the Second Amendment's plain text covers possessing firearm silencers. The plaintiffs say banning suppressors regulates arms-bearing conduct and that the state can't show a historical tradition supporting the ban.

Does this case make suppressors legal in Illinois now?

No. Possession is still a Class 3 felony under 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(6). Nothing changes unless the court rules for the plaintiffs and that judgment takes effect.

Who is behind the lawsuit?

The Anderson case was filed February 27, 2023 with backing from the American Suppressor Association Foundation and Silencer Shop. It was consolidated with Morse v. Raoul, filed in 2022.

Sources

Supplementary sources

News reports, advocacy groups, dealer practice and unofficial copies. They add context or report statements; the primary sources above control.

American Suppressor Association: Illinois litigation (industry group)