By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New – SCOTUS: Conference of Feb. 27: No cases that we are watching were discussed. United States v. Ali Danial Hemani: Case No. 24-1234: This case had a March 2 hearing. Several videos were published about the hearing. Here is a listing of them sorted by their perspective on this case; Kentucky: Sixth Circuit: District Court: T.J. Roberts v. BATFE: Case No: 2:26-cv-91-SCM: 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.
SCOTUS
Conference of Feb. 27: None of the five important Second Amendment cases was acted upon. The next conferences are: 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: The hearing was held on March 2. Several videos were published about the hearing. Here is a listing of them sorted by their perspective on this case.
Institutional/neutral/analysis
- SCOTUSblog– “Oral argument for live blog for Monday, March 2: Live Chat:
- Forbes Breaking News – “Arguments On Gun Bans For Drug Users Considered By Supreme Court”. Packages the full argument audio with light, news-style framing; relatively neutral focus on “what happened” at argument.
- Doctrinal clips: exchanges on whether “drug users” are analogous to historical categories of dangerous persons; questions about line-drawing and enforcement.
Gun-rights–oriented (rights-expansive)
- Four Boxes Diner – “BREAKING NEWS! SUPREME COURT TO FINALLY HEAR MAJOR 2A CASE!”
Frames Hemani as a major opportunity to strike down § 922(g)(3) and stresses expansive individual gun rights.- Doctrinal clips: arguments that historical tradition does not support disarming nonviolent drug users; emphasis on overbreadth and lack of individualized dangerousness.
- Washington Gun Law – “A Huge Second Amendment Case Before the Supreme Court Tomorrow”
Focuses on how Hemani could reshape 2A doctrine nationwide and criticizes broad federal disarmament regimes.- Doctrinal clips: explanation of Bruen’s text–history test applied to drug use; treatment of whether “unlawful user” is too vague to serve as a disarmament trigger.
- Gun Owners of America – “Gun & Marijuana Possession To Be Decided By SCOTUS Soon”
Advocacy-driven analysis emphasizing marijuana users’ rights and the danger of using drug status to strip 2A rights.- Doctrinal clips: attacks on the “dangerousness” label for marijuana users; arguments about selective enforcement and disparate impact.
- If you are interested in viewing a large youtube.com listing of comments on this case use this URL.
District Court
Kentucky: Sixth Circuit
T.J. Roberts v. BATFE: Case No: 2:26-cv-91-SCM: 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 that the Maryland law is preempted by PLCAA because it seeks to impose liability on industry members for harms caused by third parties’ criminal acts, 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
