By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New – SCOTUS: Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections: Case No. 24-568: d United States v. Ali Danial Hemani: Case No. 24-1234: This case has been scheduled for a March 2 hearing and it asks whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)—which bars firearm possession by anyone who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance”—violates the Second Amendment; Courts of Appeal; Massachusetts: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: Granata v. Campbell, Case Nos. 22-1478 and 25-1918: On Jan. 29, both the Firearms Policy Coalition and the United States filed briefs in support of this challenge to the Massachusetts handgun ban at the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The District Court had upheld the ban; Virginia State Court: Tazewell County Circuit Court: McDougle v. Nardo: No. CL25-001582-00:A Virginia state judge, Judge Jack Hurley Jr., blocked Democratic legislators’ attempt to fast‑track a mid‑decade constitutional amendment that would have enabled a heavily pro‑Democratic redraw of the state’s U.S. House districts for 2026. This is a major victory for Republicans and for maintaining current representation.
SCOTUS
Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections: Case No. 24-568: In a 7-2 decision, the Justices ruled that political candidates have Article III standing to challenge election rules in federal court, overturning the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Michael Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections.
Core holding and case background
- The case involves Illinois laws that allow mail-in ballots to be counted for up to about two weeks after Election Day, which Congressman Michael Bost and others argued conflicted with federal statutes that consider a single federal “Election Day.”
- Lower federal courts dismissed the challenge for lack of standing, ruling that Bost, as a candidate, could not sue over these election rules, and the Supreme Court reversed and remanded that decision.
- Supreme Court’s reasoning on standing
- Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court, states that candidates have a “personal stake” in the rules governing how votes are counted in their elections and therefore can meet the requirements of Article III’s case-or-controversy. The opinion emphasizes that illegal election rules can harm candidates by causing them to lose elections, requiring them to spend additional resources, reducing their vote share, or damaging their reputations. It also notes that candidates have an interest in ensuring the fairness and legality of the electoral process itself.
- Claimed implications for election litigation
- MARK W, Smith (https://www.youtube.com/@TheFourBoxesDiner) frames the ruling as a “huge win” for President Trump, Republican candidates, and “election integrity” advocates, arguing it closes off a frequently used standing-based defense by “blue state” jurisdictions in challenges to election rules.
- United States v. Ali Danial Hemani: Case No. 24-1234: This case has been scheduled for a March 2 hearing and it asks whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)—which bars firearm possession by anyone who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance”—violates the Second Amendment as applied to Hemani, a Texas resident who possessed a firearm while using marijuana (and with cocaine also found during a search).
Amicus Briefs
At least 12 amicus briefs have been filed so far in United States v. Hemani, with indications that the total may be higher as additional briefs are reported. Currently identifiable amicus briefs are:
- Liberty Justice Center. Coalition including Gun Owners of America and affiliated organizations.
- Brief by 19 state attorneys general.
- NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws).
- NRA and NRA Institute for Legislative Action.
- Five advocacy groups filing “five separate amicus briefs”:
- Center for Human Liberty
- Firearms Policy Coalition
- National Association for Gun Rights
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association & Drug Policy Alliance. The district court dismissed the indictment on Second Amendment grounds, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the statute cannot constitutionally disarm a sober person based solely on their status as a drug user rather than proof of intoxication or dangerousness at the time of gun possession.
Courts of Appeal
Massachusetts: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Granata v. Campbell, Case Nos. 22-1478 and 25-1918: On Jan. 29, both the Firearms Policy Coalition and the United States filed briefs supporting this challenge to the Massachusetts handgun ban at the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The District Court had upheld the ban.
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING APPELLANTS AND URGING REVERSAL:
This amicus brief addresses a narrower and more fundamental point. Whatever regulatory authority States possess, that authority does not extend to prohibiting the sale of arms that are in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. When a law operates to forbid the sale of those arms, it crosses a constitutional line the Second Amendment does not permit. Because Massachusetts law prohibits the sale of arms that are in common use, it conflicts with the Second Amendment’s text as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
The judgment below should therefore be reversed.
Hopefully, the US DOJ brief will help secure certiorari in this case.
Virginia State Court
Virginia: Tazewell County Circuit Court
McDougle v. Nardo: No. CL25-001582-00:A Virginia state judge, Judge Jack Hurley Jr., blocked Democratic legislators’ attempt to fast‑track a mid‑decade constitutional amendment that would have enabled a heavily pro‑Democratic redraw of the state’s U.S. House districts for 2026. This is a major victory for Republicans and for maintaining current representation.
Core legal holding
- Virginia Democrats aimed to amend the state constitution so the General Assembly could override the existing independent redistricting commission and redraw congressional districts, shifting the current 6–5 Democrat–Republican split in the Virginia delegation to an expected 10–1 map favoring Democrats.
- Judge Hurley ruled that this process violated the Virginia Constitution and General Assembly procedural rules and issued an injunction preventing the amendment from proceeding to a statewide referendum in April 2026.
- First defect: the supposed “first” legislative vote on the amendment took place during a October 2025 special session that was limited by agreement to state budget and finance issues unless there was unanimous consent to expand the agenda; Republicans withheld consent, making the vote on the amendment ultra vires and void.
- Second defect: By October 2025, more than one million Virginians had already cast early ballots for the November 4, 2025, general election, so the court held that the amendment vote did not occur “before” the intervening election as required by Virginia law (first vote, then election, then second vote, then popular referendum).
- Constitutional amendment sequence
- In the process, an amendment must: (1) pass the General Assembly in one session, (2) be followed by a general election for the legislature, (3) pass the newly elected legislature with a second vote, and then (4) be approved by voters in a referendum.
- Because the October 2025 vote was invalid and also held after voting had effectively started, the judge considered January 2026 as the actual “first” valid vote, meaning another full election must happen before any second legislative vote and referendum, delaying any such amendment well beyond April 2026.
- Mark W. Smith, a Second Amendment attorney (@FourBoxesDiner on X.com and the Four Boxes Diner on YouTube.com), who reviews current cases, places this decision in the context of the 2026 mid-term elections.
- The case is part of a larger, partisan redistricting fight, claiming that blue states gained extra House seats through gerrymandering and census methods (including counting undocumented immigrants) and that Republicans have attempted to counter this in red states.
This decision will determine which party controls the House in 2026, making this Virginia ruling a key short-term safeguard against losing Republican House seats in Virginia
