By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New – SCOTUS: Conference of February 20, 2026: No cases that we are watching were discussed. United States v. Ali Danial Hemani: Case No. 24-1234: This case has been scheduled for a March 2 hearing; Courts of Appeal, Texas: Texas, Fifth Circuit: Elite Precision Customs v. BATFE: Case: 25-11206: This case has been appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On Feb. 4, the Firearms Policy Coalition filed their brief; Maryland, Fourth Circuit; National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. Brown, Case No: 1:25‑cv‑01115 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. This is a challenge in the Fourth Circuit to Maryland’s 2023 “public nuisance” statute targeting the firearms industry, which NSSF contends is preempted by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and violates multiple constitutional provisions; Maryland, Fourth Circuit: National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. Brown, Case No: 1:25‑cv‑01115 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. This is a challenge in the Fourth Circuit to Maryland’s 2023 “public nuisance” statute targeting the firearms industry, which NSSF contends is preempted by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and violates multiple constitutional provisions; State Court; Christopher Morgan v. State of Florida: No. 1D2025-0377: On February 13, 2026, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, filed A NOTICE REGARDING ITS POSITION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF:
SCOTUS
Conference of Feb. 20: None of the five important cases was acted upon. The next conferences are: this Friday, Feb. 27, and March 6, March 20, and March 27. Any cases granted certiorari at those dates will very likely be considered in the Fall 2026 term.
United States v. Ali Danial Hemani: Case No. 24-1234: This case is scheduled for a hearing on March 2. The Constitution Daily Blog from February 18, 2026, includes a section on this case. The author, Marcia Coyle, summarizes it well.
“A federal statute that is part of the Gun Control Act of 1968 states that “it shall be unlawful for any person . . . who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess firearms or ammunition. Ali Hemani was indicted in 2023 for violating the federal statute (18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3)). The indictment alleged that in 2022, Hemani knowingly possessed a Glock 19 9mm pistol while being an unlawful user of controlled substances such as marijuana, promethazine, and cocaine. The gun was found in a closet in his parents’ home. The government did not allege Hemani was using drugs at the time he actually possessed the gun but that he was a regular drug user.”
Court of Appeals
Texas, Fifth Circuit
Elite Precision Customs v. BATFE: Case: 25-11206: This case has been appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On Feb. 4, the Firearms Policy Coalition filed their brief:
“The district court never reached the question of whether the government had carried this burden, however, because it concluded that the “plain text” of the Second Amendment does not extend to cover regulations, such as this one, which impose “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S.570, 626–27 (2008), but which do not amount to an “infringement” of the right. This was wrong.”
The opening brief argues that the interstate handgun sales ban violates the Second Amendment under the Bruen text‑and‑history standard because there is no historical tradition of prohibiting purchasers from buying handguns from dealers in other states, so long as they are otherwise lawful and pass a background check.
- The brief contends the district court “abandoned” Bruen by upholding the law based on interest‑balancing and speculative public‑safety concerns, instead of demanding a well‑established historical analogue.
- It frames the ban as treating the right to keep and bear arms as a second‑class right, contrasting it with the free movement and commerce enjoyed for other constitutionally protected goods and activities.
Elite Precision Customs v. BATFE: Case No. 4:25-cv-00044-P: Litigation was filed on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 2025, in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas: “challenging the federal ban on interstate transfers of handguns from federally licensed dealers to individuals who are otherwise eligible to purchase and possess a handgun for lawful purposes but cannot purchase directly from a dealer because they do not live in the same state as the dealer.”
On Sept. 30, 2025, Judge Mark T. Pittman granted the government’s motion to dismiss the case.
District Court
Maryland, Fourth Circuit
National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. Brown, Case No: 1:25‑cv‑01115 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. This is a challenge in the Fourth Circuit to Maryland’s 2023 “public nuisance” statute targeting the firearms industry, which NSSF contends is preempted by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and violates multiple constitutional provisions.
Background and Statute
- The statute authorizes the attorney general and others to bring civil actions against firearm industry members based on a vague “reasonableness” standard requiring “reasonable controls” to prevent their products from being used in crime and characterizes violations as a public nuisance.
Claims and Legal Theories
- NSSF alleges the Maryland law is preempted by PLCAA because it seeks to impose liability on industry members for harms caused by the criminal acts of third parties, which PLCAA was enacted to bar.
- NSSF also pleads that the law violates the First Amendment (by chilling lawful commercial speech and advertising), the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause (by burdening and effectively regulating lawful interstate commerce in firearms), and the Due Process Clause (for vagueness).
District Court Ruling
- The district court held that NSSF had associational standing, relying in part on an existing Maryland enforcement action brought by Attorney General Brown against NSSF member Glock, Inc., as showing a concrete and imminent threat of enforcement against NSSF’s members.
- Nevertheless, the court abstained and dismissed the case without prejudice under abstention principles, reasoning that granting NSSF relief would improperly interfere with the pending state-court enforcement action against Glock.
Appeal to the Fourth Circuit
- NSSF appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, seeking to reinstate its federal pre‑enforcement challenge and obtain an injunction against enforcement of the Maryland statute.
- On appeal, NSSF argues that abstention was improper because its federal constitutional and PLCAA preemption claims are distinct from the issues in the Glock enforcement action and that federal courts have a duty to adjudicate such claims rather than defer to ongoing state proceedings.
Posture and Practical Stakes
- As of February 2026, the case is pending in the Fourth Circuit; the district court’s abstention-based dismissal is on review and no final appellate merits ruling on PLCAA preemption or the constitutional claims has yet issued.
- The case is significant because, if NSSF succeeds, Maryland’s statute could be curtailed or invalidated and the decision would provide circuit-level guidance on the extent of PLCAA preemption and federal constitutional limits on state attempts to create firearms‑industry nuisance liability schemes
State Court
Christopher Morgan v. State of Florida: No. 1D2025-0377: In 2007, Morgan was convicted in Pennsylvania of a third‑degree felony for carrying a firearm without a license. In 2022, during a traffic stop in Florida, Morgan told officers he had a handgun in the center console and disclosed his prior felony. Florida then charged and obtained a conviction under a state felon‑in‑possession statute that mirrors 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), imposing a categorical firearm ban on anyone previously convicted of a felony. Morgan appealed, arguing that because his prior conviction did not involve any element of physical violence or dangerous conduct, ap
On February 13, 2026, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, filed A NOTICE REGARDING ITS POSITION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF:
“The State previously filed an answer brief taking the position that Appellant Christopher Morgan was properly convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. On further reflection, the Attorney General is of the view that the conviction violated Morgan’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Properly understood, the Second Amendment permits the government to dispossess felons whose convictions indicate that the felon is dangerous, but not merely all felons as a categorical matter. The Attorney General therefore notifies the Court of this amended position in advance of the oral argument scheduled for Monday, Feb. 16, 2026.
