Sign up for Executive Dysfunction, a newsletter that highlights one under-the-radar story each week about how Trump is changing the law—or how the law is pushing back. You’ll also receive updates on the latest from Slate’s Jurisprudence team.

For years, state bans on assault rifles and large-capacity magazines had enjoyed an unbroken winning streak throughout the nation’s federal courts of appeals. That run came to a halt last Friday when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit struck down New Jersey’s bans on both, granting civilians a Second Amendment right to military-grade weaponry. Given the 3rd Circuit’s conservative tilt, this outcome was no surprise. But the margin of the vote split was stunning: The court, sitting en banc, ruled 10–5 against the Garden State’s laws, with Judge Arianna Freeman—a progressive appointee of President Joe Biden—writing the majority opinion. This lopsided vote may give the Supreme Court greater ideological cover to enshrine a nationwide right to assault weapons when it takes up the issue next term.

On this week’s Slate Plus bonus episode of Amicus, co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discussed the 3rd Circuit’s blowout decision against New Jersey, and explored why two liberal judges endorsed a ruling that expands civilian access to mass shooters’ weapon of choice. A preview of their conversation, below, has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Dahlia Lithwick: Everyone thought this case was going to be close; Senate Republicans actually rushed two Trump appointees through confirmation to make sure it went the right way for the gun industry. But it turned out to be a rout against New Jersey. What did Judge Freeman hold?

Mark Joseph Stern: Freeman held that Heller and Bruen protect any weapon in “common use” today, then found that assault rifles are in “common use” and cannot be banned under the Second Amendment. That doesn’t mean these weapons are in common use for self-defense; in fact, they’re almost never used in self-defense. Nor does it mean that most gun owners have AR-15s or similar weapons; only a small fraction of law-abiding gun owners possess these rifles. But there are millions of them owned by Americans today. And so Freeman held that this fact alone was sufficient to grant them constitutional protections under the Second Amendment.

Although Freeman is very much a liberal judge, this was not a grudging application of Heller and Bruen. She went all-out, enthusiastically applying a maximalist........

© Slate