By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—An interesting article on the Trump DOJ from Andrew Willinger of the Duke Center for Firearms Law; New Second Amendment Case: United States v. Hemani; Case No: 24-1234: This case was brought to SCOTUS by the D. John Sauer, the U.S. Solicitor General. When he filed a a petition for a writ of certiorari on June 20, 2025. On Oct. 20, SCOTUS granted certiorari; Federal Courts Face Shutdown and Furloughs: As we enter another week of shutdown the U.S. federal courts began furloughing non-essential employees; Courts of Appeal: Michigan: Sixth Circuit: Yoder v. Bowen: Case No. 24-1593: Mike Yoder owned a company named Drone Deer Recovery LLC. This company helps hunters locate downed or dying deer using aerial drone. It is against the law to use a drone to in the woods. The Appeals Court found the law’s aim was environmental, rooted in ethical hunting traditions and not an attempt to favor any kind of speech, so the First Amendment did not apply in this context. Thus Drone Deer Recovery LLC, can no longer offer its services to hunters or others seeking anything lost in the wild.
Trump DOJ & Second Amendment
With the advent of the 2025 Trump Administration, we have been following the manner in which his Department of Justice has been following Trump’s Second Amendment Executive Order. On Sept. 25, Andrew Willinger wrote an article entitled The Trump DOJ’s Second Amendment Advocacy in the Duke Center for Firearms Law website. It is an interesting and perceptive article. Here are my takeaways:
- DOJ now serves as an aggressive ally for plaintiffs challenging state gun laws, particularly those implicating assault weapon and public carry restrictions. The Trump DOJ has revived a federal restoration program for those barred from gun possession and dropped appeals against court decisions invalidating age-based handgun sales bans and firearm possession bans for nonviolent felons. These actions indicate a federal shift toward relaxing gun restrictions and actively supporting legal challenges to stringent state laws. The DOJ’s amicus advocacy is led by the Second Amendment Enforcement Task Force and selectively intervenes in cases most likely to reach the Supreme Court, such as Barnett v. Raoul (challenging Illinois’ assault weapon ban).
- The federal government’s position is rooted in high-generality constitutional principles, aiming to encourage Supreme Court review of specific regulatory frameworks. The Trump DOJ’s briefs rely on a “general law” theory of the Second Amendment, favoring broad historical norms over strict legal analogies, as advocated by legal scholars Baude and Leider. This high-generality approach underpins arguments in major cases, including challenges to assault weapon and magazine bans and sensitive-place restrictions, with the goal of establishing wide-reaching constitutional principles and fueling further Supreme Court involvement.
- DOJ involvement is more targeted, seeking to prioritize the dismantling of laws seen as directly contravening the Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment jurisprudence. Instead of intervening in every case, DOJ strategically chooses litigation with greatest Supreme Court impact, often bypassing circuit-level cases that are unlikely vehicles for precedent or involve plaintiffs who are about to “age out” of restrictions. DOJ has focused especially on state assault weapon bans and sensitive-place restrictions (as in Wolford v. Lopez), arguing these regulations directly conflict with the Supreme Court’s guidance on what constitutes lawful arms and the general right to publicly carry, while being less aggressive about cases involving age limits or other “outlier” restrictions.
SCOTUS
New Second Amendment Case
United States v. Hemani; Case No: 24-1234: This case was brought to SCOTUS by the D. John Sauer, the U.S. Solicitor General. He filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on June 20. Ali Danial Hemani filed an opposition brief on July 21, and the petitioner’s reply was filed on Aug. 5. The case was distributed for the conference on October 10, 2025, and then redistributed for the October 17, 2025, conference. On October 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear United States v. Hemani, a case testing the federal law that bars gun possession by users of illegal drugs.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the gun ban for habitual drug users is a narrow, limited, and temporary restriction, which can be removed once the individual ceases drug use. The government claims the law is rooted in U.S. tradition, comparing it to historic bans on “habitual drunkards,” and argues that armed, habitual users of illegal drugs pose societal risks, especially during confrontations with police. Hemani’s defense is that appellate courts are not divided on this issue and that the government failed to fully present its historical arguments earlier, making this case a poor candidate for Supreme Court review.
Mark W. Smith of the Four Boxes Diner has posted two videos about this case in the past two days. The first video explains the core issues of the case, while the second, published on Sunday, offers additional thoughts. He suggests that the specific language in Hammani could help define “the people” and “arms” in the Second Amendment, enhance protections for all citizens, and increase the government’s burden to prove historical tradition when restricting firearms.
Background: The case originated after Texas resident Ali Danial Hemani was charged for possessing a firearm and drugs (marijuana and cocaine). He was arrested, and he challenged the constitutionality of the statute. Both the district court and the Fifth Circuit sided with Hemani, relying on precedent that voided a conviction where there was insufficient evidence that the defendant was actively using drugs at the time.
Federal Courts Face Shutdown and Furloughs
As we enter another week of shutdown, the U.S. federal courts began furloughing non-essential employees today due to the depletion of funds caused by the government shutdown. This is the first time in nearly 30 years that the judiciary has had to take such measures, although the courts will stay open, and federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, will continue to be paid because their salaries are protected by the Constitution.
Courts of Appeal
Michigan: Sixth Circuit
Yoder v. Bowen: Case No. 24-1593: Mike Yoder owned a company named Drone Deer Recovery LLC. This company helps hunters locate downed or dying deer using an aerial drone equipped with infrared and thermal imaging technology. It sounds like a good idea. However, this service was effectively banned in Michigan due to a law prohibiting drones in the taking of game, prompting Yoder and his company to file suit.
The plaintiffs did not argue a Second Amendment violation, but rather claimed that Michigan’s law infringed their First Amendment rights, arguing that the act of using drones to locate and communicate the location of game to hunters constitutes expressive, protected speech.
The federal district court dismissed the case based on lack of standing, but on appeal, the Sixth Circuit disagreed, holding the plaintiffs did have standing because the law harmed their business interests and prevented them from operating in Michigan.
The Appeals Court determined that the law’s purpose was environmental, based on ethical hunting traditions, and not an attempt to favor any type of speech, so the First Amendment did not apply in this case. Therefore, Drone Deer Recovery LLC can no longer provide its services to hunters or others searching for lost items in the wild.
