The Trump Justice Department’s top civil rights official on Monday rejected a federal appeals court’s past decision to uphold Illinois’ assault weapons ban, arguing in court that the AR-15 and similar guns are “clearly” protected by the Second Amendment.

But Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon also found herself being questioned by Judge Frank Easterbrook, who’d joined the 2023 decision that’s helped keep the law in place. On Monday, he asked Dhillon whether a lower court judge’s fact-finding affected her view.

When she said it didn’t, Easterbrook retorted, “You don’t think the facts matter.”

“Facts, of course, do matter,” she told him.

Dhillon, the head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, took the unusual step of traveling to Chicago to briefly participate in the arguments before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Her portion of the 90-minute hearing lasted about five minutes.

Still, her appearance raised the profile of the hearing on the 27th floor of the Dirksen Federal Courthouse. The National Rifle Association posted a link to a live stream in an X social media post that included Dhillon’s photograph as the arguments got underway.

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, whose office has defended the law, also attended the hearing but did not participate.

It’s not clear how, or when, the panel will rule on the constitutionality of the law.

A signature achievement of Gov. JB Pritzker, the measure in question bans the sale of assault weapons like the AR-15 and caps the purchase of magazines at 10 rounds for long guns and 15 for handguns. Pritzker, who has not ruled out a 2028 presidential run, signed the ban into law in 2023 following the 2022 Highland Park parade shooting, which left seven dead.

The Highland Park gunman used an AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle.

A 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling laid out a two-step test for such gun laws. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the justices held that if an individual’s conduct is covered by the Second Amendment, the government must then demonstrate that the law is “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Certain Supreme Court justices have since shown an interest in considering a law like Illinois’. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote last year that, if the 7th Circuit “ultimately allows Illinois to ban America’s most common civilian rifle, we can — and should — review that decision once the cases reach a final judgment.”

The 7th Circuit sided with Pritzker in 2023, finding that the weapons covered by the law don’t have Second Amendment protection because they “are much more like machine guns and military-grade weaponry” than like other firearms used for self-defense.

The ruling was written by Judge Diane Wood, who was joined by Easterbrook. Judge Michael Brennan dissented.

But the judges in 2023 were considering whether the law should be blocked by a preliminary injunction. This time around, they’re considering whether to uphold U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn’s ruling in November that the law is unconstitutional.

Easterbrook and Brennan were joined this time by Judge Amy St. Eve. She probed attorneys on both sides of the case, including by asking an attorney challenging the law about the use of the covered weapons in mass shootings.

“Every weapon is incredibly dangerous in the hands of someone who wants to misuse it,” attorney Erin Murphy countered.

When it was Dhillon’s turn, she uttered only 1½ sentences before Easterbrook interrupted to ask whether factual findings by McGlynn affected her view of the law’s constitutionality. Then he pointed to a challenge that may lie ahead for the appellate court, given that similar cases are brewing in lower courts.

“We have four essentially identical cases pending before district judges in this circuit,” Easterbrook said. “And one thing that worries me is, what happens if they don’t agree with each other? But you suggest that that’s not going to matter.”

Dhillon countered that the 7th Circuit’s previous ruling on the assault weapons ban is “at odds with the Supreme Court standard.” So McGlynn’s factual findings “wouldn’t affect my opinion as to the constitutionality of the statute.”

“Your position is essentially the position taken by Justice Thomas,” Easterbrook told her. “I entirely respect that. But much of the fight here is about findings made by this district judge and what we do with them.

“I just find it difficult to believe that the same statute could be constitutional in northern Illinois but not in southern Illinois,” he added. “Or in Illinois, but not Iowa. You get the problem.”

“I do understand the problem,” Dhillon told him, as Easterbrook chuckled from the bench. “And it is a challenge.”