A federal judge in Los Angeles denied the Trump Justice Department's emergency request to freeze enforcement of California's new ban on the sale of Glock-style semiautomatic pistols, ruling that the government's legal theory, however meritorious on Second Amendment grounds, rests on an untested use of federal law.
U.S. District Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani issued the decision on July 9, just eight days after California's AB 1127, widely known as the "Glock Ban," took effect and the DOJ filed suit the same day to block it. The ruling does not end the case. But it leaves the ban in force while the legal fight continues, and raises pointed questions about whether the judge assigned to decide it can evaluate the matter without the weight of her own professional history tipping the scales.
The stakes are straightforward. California's Democratic supermajority passed AB 1127, and Governor Gavin Newsom signed it into law in 2025. It bans the sale of Glock and similar semiautomatic handguns, firearms Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has called "the most popular type of handgun in America." The DOJ's Civil Rights Division, led by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, filed suit in Los Angeles federal court on July 1, 2026, seeking a temporary restraining order and an injunction to halt enforcement while the constitutional challenge proceeds.
Judge Almadani did not rule on whether the Glock Ban violates the Second Amendment. She focused instead on the vehicle the DOJ chose to bring the challenge: Section 12601, a federal statute the Civil Rights Division has historically used to address patterns of law enforcement abuse or discrimination, including, as the ruling noted, discrimination based on "sexual orientation, gender identity, and LGBT status."
The judge found the DOJ's use of that statute to challenge a state firearms law unprecedented. As she wrote in her order:
"Neither party identifies a previous instance in which the United States brought a Section 12601 claim for a violation of the Second Amendment, and the Court cannot find one. Nor is there any historical precedent for utilizing Section 12601 to argue that law enforcement officers engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful conduct by enforcing a state firearms law."
She acknowledged the DOJ may have a point on the merits. Her ruling conceded as much in careful language:
"While there may be merit to the United States' claim that [the Glock Ban law] unlawfully restricts California constituents' access to Glock and Glock-type pistols, the novel approach the United States employs to stake its claim is not obviously sound."
That's a judge saying, in effect: You might be right, but I'm not sure you're allowed to ask me this way.
What the ruling did not dwell on, but what conservative legal observers will note immediately, is the judge's own background. Almadani served as an assistant U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles from 2012 to 2015 under President Barack Obama. She then moved to the California state Justice Department, where she worked from 2015 to 2017 as a special assistant attorney general under then-Attorney General Kamala Harris. President Joe Biden appointed her to the federal bench in 2023.
None of that disqualifies her. But the résumé reads like a tour through the very political ecosystem that produced AB 1127. Newsom signed the bill. Harris mentored the judge. Biden gave her the robe. And now she is the one deciding whether the Trump administration can stop the law from taking effect.
Acting AG Blanche framed the lawsuit in blunt constitutional terms when the DOJ announced the filing:
"The Second Amendment is a sacred right belonging to all Americans, even those in California. California cannot ban the most popular type of handgun in America. We will work to stop this blatant trampling of our rights by the California government to protect the rights of lawful gun owners."
The DOJ's Civil Rights Division under Dhillon has moved aggressively to challenge Democrat-led state governments that impose sweeping restrictions on semiautomatic firearms. The California suit fits that pattern. But the choice to use Section 12601, a statute designed to police law enforcement misconduct, rather than a more conventional constitutional challenge gave Judge Almadani the procedural opening to deny the emergency request without reaching the constitutional question.
Newsom, whose administration faces growing federal legal scrutiny on multiple fronts, has not publicly commented on the ruling based on available reporting. California Attorney General Rob Bonta is representing the state in the case.
The judge also noted a narrower point that may shape the next phase of litigation: AB 1127 bans the sale of Glock-style pistols but does not prohibit possession. Almadani wrote that "it is not clear that California citizens are prohibited outright from acquiring Glock and Glock-style pistols." That distinction, sale versus possession, could become a battleground as the case moves forward.
The ruling left the door open for the DOJ to seek a preliminary injunction, a more formal proceeding that would allow fuller briefing and argument. The case remains pending.
Supporters of AB 1127 argue the law targets semiautomatic pistols that can be easily modified into fully automatic firearms through illegal devices known as "auto sears" or "Glock switches." That framing treats the legal sale of a lawful product as a problem because criminals may later alter it illegally, a logic that, applied consistently, could justify banning almost anything.
The broader context matters. California's Democratic leadership has pursued an escalating series of firearms restrictions, and the Glock Ban represents the most aggressive move yet: a flat prohibition on selling the most widely owned category of handgun in the country. The law does not target modification devices. It targets the guns themselves.
Meanwhile, the governor who signed AB 1127 leads an administration that has faced FBI scrutiny of his inner political circle and questions about financial flows connected to his family's nonprofit. None of that is directly related to the Glock Ban. But it speaks to the credibility of a state government that asks Californians to trust its judgment on which constitutional rights they get to keep.
Judge Almadani's ruling is, on its surface, a narrow procedural decision. She did not say the Glock Ban is constitutional. She said the DOJ picked an unusual legal tool to challenge it, and she wasn't ready to grant emergency relief on that basis.
But procedural rulings have consequences. Every day the TRO remains denied, gun dealers in California cannot sell the most common handgun platform in the United States. Every day the ban stays in effect, law-abiding Californians lose access to a firearm that remains legal in virtually every other state. The constitutional question goes unanswered while the restriction operates.
The DOJ may have a stronger path through a preliminary injunction motion, where it can build a fuller record. It may also face pressure to bring a parallel challenge on more conventional constitutional grounds, bypassing the Section 12601 question entirely. The pattern of California's governance failures suggests the state will fight every procedural inch to keep the ban alive as long as possible.
What remains undisclosed is the timeline for the next hearing and whether the DOJ will adjust its legal strategy. The case number, visible in court records, points to an active docket in the Central District of California, but no schedule for further proceedings has been reported.
Newsom's political future is itself a subject of growing conflict within California. Whether the Glock Ban survives federal court could shape how voters evaluate his legacy, and how far other blue states are willing to push similar restrictions.
The Second Amendment does not come with an asterisk for California. The DOJ's legal vehicle may be novel, but the right it seeks to protect is not. A state that bans the sale of the most common handgun in America and then hides behind a procedural technicality is not defending public safety. It is running out the clock on a constitutional guarantee.
If the law is unconstitutional, and even the judge conceded it might be, then every week it remains in force is a week Californians are denied a right the rest of the country takes for granted. Courts exist to stop that. This one hasn't yet.
