The New York-based Second Circuit will soon hear arguments in what is likely to be the most significant Second Amendment court case of the year. Dozens of Second Amendment groups, gun control advocates, and states see it as the first major test of what courts now deem permissible gun regulations.

Five cases out of New York’s federal district courts will be heard in the Second Circuit on March 20 in front of a panel of three judges. The judges face the difficult task of interpreting the state’s gun laws in the wake of a Supreme Court decision from last year. 

Following the high court’s decision in New York State Pistol and Rifle Association v. Bruen, blue states’ gun regulations were thrown into uncertainty. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, said that any and all firearms regulations must be “consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.”

New York’s strict regulations on concealed carry permit applications were thrown out, and the question of when and where firearms could be carried was not clearly answered. Governor Hochul quickly responded to the high court decision by adopting a new law called the Concealed Carry Improvement Act to try to strengthen the state’s gun laws. 

Critics say the law is in open defiance of the Supreme Court. One Second Amendment advocacy group filed a lawsuit against Ms. Hochul shortly after the law was signed. “The express purpose of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act was to defy, repudiate, circumvent, and undermine this Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen,” the group said in its lawsuit, adding that the law was a “futile effort at damage control.”

The confusion around what is and what is not permissible following the Bruen decision will now face its first comprehensive test at the appellate level after five decisions from lower courts struck down key aspects of the CCIA. 

The five cases — Antonyuk v. Nigrelli, Hardaway v. Nigrelli, Spencer v. Nigrelli, Christian v. Nigrelli, and Gazzola v. Hochul — resulted in a number of the CCIA’s provisions being thrown out. A requirement that permit applicants demonstrate “good moral character” was thrown out, as was the requirement that applicants submit their social media information as part of background checks. 

Antonyuk v. Nigrelli was the first of the five cases to be decided. Judge Glenn Suddaby of the Northern District of New York was tasked with evaluating the state’s “good moral character” requirement and the state’s review of an applicant’s social media presence. He issued a 184-page opinion striking down those two provisions last fall. 

As the Antonyuk case makes its way to the Second Circuit, it has attracted the attention of First Amendment groups who see the social media review as a threat to free speech. The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief alongside the gun owners. 

“The social media registration requirement burdens the right of applicants to speak anonymously and to associate privately and that it will inevitably chill protected speech, without any meaningful evidence that it will prevent gun violence,” the group wrote in a statement. 

The Hardaway and Spencer cases dealt with local government restrictions on carrying weapons in houses of worship. Judge John Sinatra of the Western District of New York wrote in his Spencer decision that the CCIA “fails” to meet the requirements set forth by Bruen and violates citizens’ constitutional rights. He issued the same order in the Hardaway case. 

“Ample Supreme Court precedent addressing the individual’s freedoms under the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution dictate that New York’s new place of worship exclusion is unconstitutional,” Judge Sinatra wrote. 

Christian v. Nigrelli is a case challenging New York’s provision that firearms be banned from “all private property” without the express permission of the owner, which critics say makes nearly the entire state a “gun free zone.”

“Property owners indeed have the right to exclude,” the lawsuit reads. “But the state may not unilaterally exercise that right and, thereby, interfere with the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who seek to carry for self-defense outside of their own homes.”

Earlier this year, Second Amendment advocates appealed their case to the Supreme Court after the Second Circuit allowed key parts of the CCIA to remain in effect as the appeals process plays out. Ultimately, the court did not step in, but Justices Thomas and Alito added a note saying that appellants could return to the high court if the Second Circuit does not act quickly in this appeals process. 

A legal adviser in the Antonyuk case, Stephen Button, told the Sun that the conservative justices signaled an openness to siding with gun rights groups if necessary. “It is notable that at the conclusion of the comments made by Alito and Thomas, they call for this case to be expedited through the Second Circuit, otherwise we can seek relief from the Supreme Court again,” Mr. Button added. 

The Hardway case has attracted significant national attention. In the last few days, a number of Democratic state attorneys general have signed on in defense of New York state’s gun law. In total, 18 states have asked the Second Circuit to uphold the law, including Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Vermont, and others. 

Conservatives took notice and also submitted their amicus briefs asking the court to strike down the CCIA. Montana’s attorney general, Austin Knudson, filed a brief on behalf of his state and was joined by 18 others. 

Mr. Knudson’s amicus brief states that the CCIA’s restriction on firearms in houses of worship violates both the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. 

“Places of worship across our nation have been attacked by radical individuals and groups — especially in recent years,” Mr. Knudson said in a statement to the Sun. “If states are allowed to go down the slippery slope of restricting the right to bear arms from places of worship, the freedoms we know today may no longer exist.”