A major development at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals could reshape the future of Second Amendment jurisprudence nationwide. In Roodie v. Bonta, a case challenging California’s ammunition background check regime, momentum is rapidly shifting against the state’s restrictive gun laws.

California currently requires a background check and fee for every single ammunition purchase, bans direct-to-home delivery, restricts interstate purchases, and layers these rules on top of an additional 11% tax on firearms and accessories. The result is a system that conditions the exercise of a constitutional right on repeated government permission—one that has been shown to fail thousands of lawful buyers.

This week, the U.S. Department of Justice took the extraordinary step of not only filing an amicus brief supporting Olympic gold medalist Kim Roodie, but also formally requesting to participate in oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit. Oral arguments are scheduled for March, and the DOJ will argue that access to ammunition is inseparable from the right to keep and bear arms.

Even more significant, a massive coalition of states—including Texas, Florida, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, and more than 20 others—along with the Arizona State Legislature, filed a joint brief supporting Roodie. Major Second Amendment organizations have also weighed in, creating one of the largest pro–Second Amendment coalitions ever assembled in a Ninth Circuit case.

At its core, this case challenges whether a state can tax, fee, and regulate a constitutional right into near nonexistence. With the DOJ, a majority of states, and leading constitutional scholars aligned against California, Roodie v. Bonta may become the breakthrough case that finally cracks the Ninth Circuit’s long-standing resistance to Second Amendment protections.

The stakes are enormous—and this case is one to watch closely.