What’s New—All cases awaiting SCOTUS action.
By Tanya Metaksa
A listing of Second Amendment cases that have been filed for certiorari as of January 6, 2026:
Over 75 Second Amendment-related certiorari petitions are pending before the Supreme Court that have not been addressed. The vast majority involve challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the federal prohibition on felons possessing firearms.
Case granted certiorari:
Vampire Rule
Wolford v. Lopez, No. 24-1046
Challenge to Hawaii’s prohibition on carrying firearms onto private property without the owner’s consent. The Ninth Circuit upheld the law based on the historical tradition of default rules for private property.
Current Status: Wolford v. Lopez is a pending merits case at the U.S. Supreme Court; certiorari was granted on October 3, 2025. The case is limited to Question 1 in the petition, and the argument is scheduled for January 20, 2026. We covered this case in detail last year.
United States v. Hemani, No. 24-1234: This case was granted certiorari in October 2025 and has a scheduled oral argument for March 2, 2026. The United States is the petitioner, and Ali Danial Hemani is the respondent. The Court granted certiorari to decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)—the federal statute that prohibits any person “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from possessing a firearm—violates the Second Amendment as applied to Hemani, a habitual marijuana user who possessed a handgun at home.
Background:
Hemani, a dual U.S.–Pakistani citizen, was indicted in the Eastern District of Texas for possessing a Glock 9 mm pistol while being an unlawful user of marijuana and other controlled substances, in violation of § 922(g)(3). He moved to dismiss, arguing that § 922(g)(3) is unconstitutional as applied to him under the Second Amendment. The district court agreed and dismissed the indictment, relying on the Fifth Circuit’s then-recent decision in United States v. Daniels, which held that § 922(g)(3) cannot constitutionally disarm a “sober citizen not presently under an impairing influence.”
The Fifth Circuit affirmed by summarily affirming the district court’s dismissal, applying its later decision in United States v. Connelly, which reaffirmed that there is “no historical justification” for disarming a sober person based solely on status as a habitual drug user. The United States then petitioned for a writ of certiorari, arguing that the Fifth Circuit’s rule invalidates § 922(g)(3) in most of its applications and deepens a circuit conflict.
Arguments by the United States (petitioner) for certiorari
The United States argues that the Fifth Circuit erred in holding 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) unconstitutional as applied to Hemani, and that this Court should grant certiorari to reverse that decision and resolve a three-way circuit conflict. The question presented is whether § 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment as applied to the respondent, a habitual unlawful user of marijuana.
On the merits, the government contends that § 922(g)(3) fits squarely within the history-and-tradition test of NYSRPA v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi. The statute disarms only “habitual” unlawful drug users, not the general public, and the disability is temporary and self-remedial: a person regains the right to possess firearms by ceasing unlawful drug use. Founding-era practice, the government argues, provides three key analogues: (1) vagrancy laws that treated “common drunkards” as vagrants subject to confinement; (2) civil-commitment and guardianship laws that treated “habitual drunkards” on the same footing as “lunatics”; and (3) surety laws that allowed magistrates to require bonds from “common drunkards,” with jail if the bond was not posted. These laws, the government asserts, show a settled tradition of imposing severe, sometimes custodial, consequences and effective disarmament on those who habitually abuse intoxicants.
The government also relies on later history: as the dangers of illegal drugs emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, states and Congress began restricting drug users’ access to guns, culminating in § 922(g)(3) and numerous parallel state laws. That tradition, the government argues, applies the same principle—disarming categories of persons who pose a special danger of misuse—to a modern problem (illegal drugs) that did not exist in its current form at the founding.
The government further argues that § 922(g)(3) is limited in scope and consistent with Second Amendment constraints: it does not broadly disarm the public but only a discrete class; the burden is temporary; and it is subject to individualized relief under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c), which allows restoration of rights upon a showing that the person will not act dangerously and that relief is in the public interest. Finally, the petition stresses that the Fifth Circuit’s rule (requiring proof of intoxication at the moment of possession) conflicts with decisions upholding § 922(g)(3) in the Seventh Circuit and with the Eighth Circuit’s more limited, case-by-case standard, and threatens federal and state gun–drug laws nationwide.
Arguments by Hemani (respondent) in opposition
Hemani’s opposition defends the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and urges denial of certiorari, or in the alternative, affirmance of the lower courts’ dismissal of the indictment. He grounds his argument in Bruen’s two-step framework as applied by the Fifth Circuit.
First, Hemani emphasizes that his conduct—possession of a common handgun in the home—is squarely within the Second Amendment’s text (“keep and bear Arms” by “the people”), and that as a never-convicted citizen, he falls within “the people,” not outside it as a felon or non-citizen might. The government, therefore, bears the burden under Bruen to show that § 922(g)(3) is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Second, he alleges that the government cannot meet that burden. The government’s analogues—laws targeting drunkards, vagrants, or the mentally ill—either (a) regulated use of arms while actively intoxicated or in specific public situations, or (b) involved civil confinement of persons adjudged insane, rather than categorical, ongoing disarmament based solely on status as an “unlawful user.” Hemani points out that founding-era and Reconstruction-era laws typically punished misuse (e.g., firing while drunk, going armed to the terror of the people) with fines, imprisonment, or short-term restraints, not permanent or long-term loss of arms rights triggered by past drug use, evidenced by events up to a year before possession.
Hemani stresses that the Fifth Circuit, applying Bruen and Rahimi, has already done the historical work in Connelly and Daniels and concluded that there is “no historical justification” for disarming a “sober citizen not presently under an impairing influence.” He further notes that the government conceded his case is indistinguishable from those precedents. On that view, § 922(g)(3) might be constitutional only when the government proves contemporaneous intoxication or permanent impairment akin to severe mental illness, but not in the broad run of cases like his.
The opposition to certiorari also downplays the purported circuit split, noting that many pre-Bruen cases upholding § 922(g)(3) rested on means-end scrutiny that Bruen rejected, and that post-Bruen doctrine is still developing. It also argues that the government’s reliance on § 925(c) is illusory, because the relief mechanism was non-functional for decades and cannot cure a statute that is unconstitutional at the moment of criminal prosecution. Finally, it urges the Court to allow further lower-court percolation on how Bruen applies to status-based disarmament before taking this case, especially given evolving state regimes around marijuana and firearms.
Summary of amici curiae briefs
The amicus briefs in this case cluster around two competing themes: preserving legislative authority to disarm dangerous persons versus tightening Bruen’s constraints on status-based prohibitions.
Amici supporting the United States—including Everytown for Gun Safety, Giffords, a group of Second Amendment law scholars, other gun-violence-prevention organizations, and a coalition of state attorneys general—argue that § 922(g)(3) fits within a long tradition of disarming those who present a heightened risk of firearm misuse. They emphasize that history shows robust regulation of “dangerous” categories (e.g., habitual drunkards, the mentally ill, certain threatening persons) and that later 19th- and early 20th-century laws addressing narcotics use legitimately implement founding-era principles in response to new social problems. Methodologically, these amici urge the Court to give substantial weight to post-ratification practice, to treat 1868 as at least co-equal with 1791, and to avoid demanding “historical twins” rather than analogues.
Amici aligned with the respondent focus less on his brief and more on broader doctrinal dangers. They warn that upholding § 922(g)(3) as written would endorse sweeping, vague, and easily manipulable “dangerousness” categories, undercutting Bruen’s constraint on modern gun control and threatening the core right of non-violent users of now-legal marijuana in many states.
Major Cases on Different Second Amendment Issues awaiting certiorari decision
A. 18-to-20-year-olds.firearms prohibition
NRA v. Glass, No. 24-1185
Challenge to the Eleventh Circuit’s March 2025 decision upholding Florida’s ban on selling or transferring firearms to 18-to-20-year-olds.
Paris v. Lara (cert petition filed as Paris v. Second Amendment Foundation)
Challenge to the Third Circuit’s January 2025 decision striking down Pennsylvania’s prohibition on 18-to-20-year-olds publicly carrying firearms during states of emergency.
B. Challenge to Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act
The State of Missouri sought a 60-day extension of time to file a petition for certiorari up to and including Thursday, January 23, 2025.
Missouri v. United States
Challenge to Eighth Circuit decision striking down Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA), involving Supremacy Clause and Tenth Amendment anti-commandeering principles.
C. Challenge to California’s magazine restriction to 10 rounds or fewer
Duncan v. Bonta, No. 25‑198
A 2025 en banc decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upholding California’s ban on large-capacity magazines (magazines holding more than ten rounds) against a Second Amendment challenge, that is now before the U.S. Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari.
D. Challenges to certain persons being denied possession of firearms. I predict that none of these cases will be considered until the United States v. Hemani. And then that decision will be referenced by the Court.
Quiroz v. United States, Case No. 24-7342
Challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(n), which prohibits individuals under felony indictment from possessing firearms.
As-applied challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits unlawful drug users and addicts from possessing firearms. The following cases question the constitutionality of the federal ban on felons possessing firearms, either facially or as-applied. These petitions have been repeatedly “relisted” for multiple Supreme Court conferences, showing serious consideration by the Court. The next conference scheduled to review these petitions is January 9, 2026. I expect that most of these cases will be relisted until after the Hemani case is adjudicated..
Zherka v. Bondi, No. 25-269
Whether the Second Amendment permits disarming a citizen for a non-violent fraud offense.
Vincent v. Bondi
Single, seventeen-year-old, non-violent felony bank fraud conviction. Petition seeks to resolve circuit split over whether as-applied challenges are permitted.
Granger v. United States, No. 65-6122
Whether convicted felons have Second Amendment rights and whether § 922(g)(1) withstands scrutiny in all applications.
Ketzner v. United States, No. 25-5708
Whether federal government may permanently disarm petitioner due to prior felony convictions without individualized determination of dangerousness.
Robinson v. United States, No. 25-5903
Constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1).
Robinson v. United States, No. 25-5150
Another case challenging § 922(g)(1).
Pierre v. United States, No. 25-642
Challenge to § 922(g)(1), petition requests holding pending Hemani decision.
Dubois v. United States, No. 25-6281
Lifetime prohibition without individualized determination of ongoing dangerousness.
Morgan v. United States, No. 25-6062
Challenge involving a non-violent offense and Commerce Clause issue.
Williams v. United States, No. 25-6108
Challenge including Commerce Clause argument regarding intrastate possession.
Williams v. United States, No. 25-6129
Challenge to permanent disarmament in home based on prior felony.
Medrano v. United States, No. 24-7508
As-applied challenge where prior convictions were attempted burglary and vehicle theft.
Duarte v. United States, No. 25-425
Categorical ban as applied to non-violent predicate offenses.
Howard v. United States, No. 25-5220,
As-applied, where the most serious prior felony was drug trafficking.
Reese v. United States, No. 25-5327
Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenges.
Cantu v. United States, No. 25-5388
Whether § 922(g)(1) is invariably constitutional regardless of case-specific circumstances.
Williams v. United States, No. 25-5415
As-applied challenge where predicate convictions were pursuant to statute found facially unconstitutional under Second Amendment
Lifetime ban challenges
Mitchell v. United States, No. 25-5417
Lifetime ban challenge.
Kearney v. United States, No. 25-5424
Lifetime ban challenge.
Thompson v. United States, No. 25-5434
Lifetime ban challenge.
Fowler v. United States, No. 25-5437
Lifetime ban challenge.
Finney v. United States, No. 25-5438
Lifetime ban challenge
Greene v. United States, No. 25-5439
Lifetime ban challenge.
Perry v. United States, No. 25-5441
Lifetime ban challenge.
Stokes v. United States, No. 25-6064
Lifetime ban challenge.t
Coleman v. United States, No. 25-5614
Lifetime ban challenge.
Brown v. United States, No. 25-5624
Lifetime ban challenge.
Coles v. United States, No. 25-5627
Lifetime ban challenge.
Allen v. United States, No. 25-5655
Lifetime ban challenge.
Seward v. United States, No. 25-5599
Lifetime ban challenge.
Mason v. United States, No. 25-5601
Lifetime ban challenge.
Campbell v. United States, No. 25-5603
Lifetime ban challenge.
Johnson v. United States, No. 25-6107
Lifetime ban challenge.
Crews v. United States, No. 25-5443
Lifetime ban challenge.
Facial or as-applied challenge.
Osbourne v. United States, No. 25-5382
Facial or as-applied challenge.
Gilbert v. United States, No. 25-5607
Whether as-applied challenges permitted; challenge involving non-violent theft offense.
Gonzalez v. United States, No. 25-6106
Facial or as-applied challenge for nonviolent felony convictions.
Hernandez v. United States, No. 25-5421
Facial or as-applied challenge for non-violent offenses.
Bush v. United States, No. 25-5597
Facial or as-applied challenge.
Compton v. United States, No. 25-5358
Facial or as-applied challenge.
Osbourne v. United States, No. 25-5382
Facial or as-applied challenget
Willis v. United States, No. 25-5009
Facial and as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1).
Marshall v. United States, No. 25-5259
Whether § 922(g)(1) is subject to as-applied challenges.
Whitaker v. United States, No. 25-6078
Whether as-applied challenges permitted for non-violent priors.
Rahimi
Lee v. United States, No. 25-5748
Challenge under Bruen and Rahimi precedents.
Hemphill v. United States, No. 25-5875
Whether Fifth Circuit correctly applied Rahimi reasoning.
Mayfield v. United States, No. 24-7400
Challenge under Bruen and Rahimi.
