Senate Republicans have an incredible opportunity to help advance the Second Amendment by confirming Professor Jennifer Mascott to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals before October 15. On that date, the court will hear arguments in an “assault weapon” ban case with enormous implications for our right to keep and bear arms. The argument concerns whether New Jersey’s ban on AR-15s, semi-automatic rifles, and standard capacity magazines is constitutional. Confirming Mascott would give Republican appointees a 9-6 majority on that court. A Second Amendment victory in the case would create a circuit split among lower courts, likely compelling the Supreme Court to take up the “assault weapon” ban issue.

Two weeks ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ordered rehearing en banc in the consolidated cases of Cheeseman v. Attorney General of New Jersey and Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General of New Jersey (together, “Cheeseman”). These cases arguably implicate the hottest Second Amendment questions percolating in the courts: the constitutionality of bans on so-called “assault weapons” and standard capacity magazines.

Although there is now a slight Republican majority on the Third Circuit, confirming Mascott by October 15 might be helpful. If she is not confirmed by then, the court will be split 8-6 for Republicans going into the Cheeseman hearing. Thus, if even one Republican judge voted to uphold New Jersey’s gun ban, the law would be upheld by a 7-7 vote, thereby affirming a lower court’s earlier ruling. But if Mascott is confirmed promptly, the ban might be struck down (8 votes to 7) even if one Republican votes for the ban.

To break down the court’s composition, there will be eight Republican appointees on the Third Circuit en banc panel: Chief Judge Michael Chagares (W. Bush), Thomas Hardiman (W. Bush), D. Brooks Smith (W. Bush), Stephanos Bibas (Trump), David Porter (Trump), Paul Matey (Trump), Peter Phipps (Trump), and the newly-confirmed Emil Bove (Trump). Despite his “senior status,” Judge Smith can participate on the en banc panel because he sat on the three-judge panel initially presiding over the case.

The Third Circuit’s six Democratic appointees are Patty Shwartz (Obama), Cheryl Krause (Obama), Felipe Restrepo (Obama), Arianna Freeman (Biden), Tamika Montgomery-Reeves (Biden), and Cindy Chung (Biden).

Winning in the Third Circuit is especially important for the right to bear arms because a decision favorable to the Second Amendment would create a circuit split over whether ordinary semi-automatic rifles and magazines may be constitutionally banned. The Third Circuit’s decision would directly conflict with decisions from the First, Second, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits. Such a split of authority in the lower federal court would dramatically increase the chances of SCOTUS agreeing to hear an “assault weapon ban” case to resolve the split.

The Third Circuit is uniquely situated to protect the Second Amendment. It is the only court where you have a Republican majority overseeing a progressive “blue state” known for being vehemently anti-gun, i.e., New Jersey. There’s no other similar “federal appeals court-to-state” dynamic. The best circuit for the Second Amendment is the Fifth Circuit. Still, that court covers the red states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, three states that would never pass a blatantly unconstitutional law as an AR-15 ban. Thus, winning at the Third Circuit is crucial to maximizing the odds of Supreme Court review. This makes Mascott’s speedy confirmation imperative.

Mascott’s nomination should sail through the U.S. Senate given her elite credentials. She serves in the White House Counsel’s office, previously clerking for Justice Clarence Thomas and then-Judge Kavanaugh when he served on the D.C. Circuit. Before joining the Catholic Law School, she was a professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School. Mascott has strong originalist bona fides and has even praised Justice Thomas’s desire for the Supreme Court to take more Second Amendment cases, noting that the Second Amendment is “often undervalued by the judiciary.” If confirmed, Mascott will likely be a strong voice for restoring the Second Amendment as originally understood by our Founders to modern American life.

From the Senate’s point of view, Mascott’s nomination presents a perfect opportunity for Majority Leader John Thune and Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley to reaffirm their commitment to expediting important judicial nominees through the process.

The Cheeseman case offers a golden opportunity for Second Amendment advocates to win on whether the Constitution protects the most popular rifle in America. The obvious answer is yes, and the Third Circuit has a chance to say as much. However, there is no margin for error with an 8-6 split on the court. As such, the Senate must confirm Jennifer Mascott before October 15 to increase the odds of victory and vindicate our fundamental right to keep and bear arms.