The Virginia Supreme Court has appointed a three-judge panel to determine whether four lawsuits challenging the state’s newly enacted assault weapon ban should be consolidated and transferred to a single court, setting up the next phase of a high-profile legal fight over one of the General Assembly’s most consequential gun-control measures.
The panel was appointed on June 3 after Attorney General Jay Jones and multiple commonwealth’s attorneys asked the court to combine four lawsuits filed in Washington, Lancaster, Spotsylvania and Fauquier counties challenging the law signed by Gov. Abigail Spanberger last month.
The cases seek to block a ban on certain semiautomatic firearms and magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds, legislation approved by Democrats after making gun regulation a major priority during the 2026 General Assembly session. The law is scheduled to take effect on July 1.
In its application, the attorney general’s office argued the lawsuits raise largely identical constitutional questions and should be heard together to avoid conflicting rulings from courts across Virginia. Jones said all four cases challenge the same statute, rely on similar arguments under Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution and seek injunctions preventing enforcement of the law.
“Absent transfer, decisions on those motions will proceed contemporaneously and lead to confusion and chaos with respect to the significant common questions of law,” the state’s filing said.
The Supreme Court’s order names Circuit Court Judges Richard S. Wallerstein Jr., J. William Watson Jr. and Helivi L. Holland to serve on the panel. The judges will determine whether the cases should be transferred to a single circuit court for coordinated or consolidated proceedings.
The lawsuits were filed within days of Spanberger signing the legislation on May 14.
One suit, filed in Lancaster County by gun-rights activist John Crump and organizations including Gun Owners of America and the Virginia Citizens Defense League, argues the law violates Virginians’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Other lawsuits were filed by firearm owners, gun shops and industry groups in various parts of the state.
Attorneys for the Crump plaintiffs urged the Supreme Court to reject the state’s request, arguing the cases involve different legal theories, plaintiffs and factual circumstances.
In a response filed May 29, the plaintiffs contended that while each lawsuit challenges portions of the same legislation, the cases are not identical. They noted that one lawsuit includes federal Second Amendment claims, another focuses heavily on Virginia’s constitutional militia clause and others involve different constitutional and statutory arguments.
The plaintiffs also argued that consolidation would primarily benefit state officials while forcing private citizens and businesses to litigate farther from their home communities.
“If Applicants wish to enforce their infringements statewide, they should be willing to defend those infringements statewide,” the filing states.
The opposition filing also noted that a hearing on the Crump plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction had already been scheduled in Lancaster County for June 12, ahead of the law’s July 1 effective date.
That hearing has since been canceled, with the Lancaster judge citing the SCV’s panel formation.
The three-judge panel will now decide whether the state’s request satisfies the requirements of Virginia’s Multiple Claimant Litigation Act, which allows related cases involving common questions of law or fact to be transferred and coordinated before a single court.
Its decision will determine whether challenges to Virginia’s new assault weapon ban proceed independently in courts across the commonwealth or move forward as a consolidated case before one judge.
This will likely prevent any injunction against the law from being granted before it takes effect on July 1, while the panel considers its task.
In federal court, however, the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action announced last month that it filed a federal lawsuit challenging the law, arguing the ban violates Second Amendment protections outlined in recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
The lawsuit argues that the law bans “commonly owned firearms and magazines that are overwhelmingly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” and contends the state cannot justify the restrictions under the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Republicans do not expect the lawsuit to succeed in lower courts, but they hope the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the case. The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a similar ban in Maryland last year, and SCOTUS declined to take up the case.
Even if these lawsuits are not successful, a growing list of commonwealth’s attorneys have stated they will not enforce the new gun law once it goes into effect.
“Please be advised that it is my opinion that significant parts of House Bill 217 – specifically, bans of so called assault firearms, large capacity ammunition feeding devices and the carrying of these items in public – are facially unconstitutional,” wrote Powhatan Commonwealth’s Attorney Robert Cerullo in a letter to Powhatan Sheriff Bradford Nunnally.
“After careful review of the legislation and existing Supreme Court precedent, I find the assault weapon ban signed by the Governor on May 15, 2026 unconstitutional – and as a result, unenforceable,” Smyth County Commonwealth’s Attorney Phillip Blevins Jr. said in a statement. “My office will not support criminal charges resulting solely from technical violations of the unconstitutional assault weapon ban.”
Commonwealth’s attorneys do take an oath to uphold the Virginia Constitution and the laws that the General Assembly passes.
“Gun violence is a key driver of violent crime, and the leading cause of death for young people in our Commonwealth,” Jones said in a statement to Virginia Scope last month. “The General Assembly passed and the Governor signed critical legislation to reduce violent crime and protect our communities. Commonwealth’s Attorneys are elected to enforce our laws, which is what we expect them to do when these laws take effect on July 1.”