SCOTUS Gun Watch 2/23/2026
Upcoming Arguments
On Tuesday, March 2, the Court will hear oral arguments in United States v. Hemani, which is a challenge to the federal law prohibiting anyone deemed an “unlawful user of a controlled substance” (as defined by the Controlled Substances Act) from possessing a firearm. The United States (Petitioner) writes in its opening brief:
All agree that there is a deeply rooted history and tradition of temporarily barring people from possessing firearms based on their use of alcohol. Further, all agree that this history and tradition would encompass the use of controlled substances such as marijuana. The only dispute is a narrow one: does the longstanding body of restrictions support disarming only people actively under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances, as the Fifth Circuit has held and as respondent contends? Or does the historical record also support temporarily disarming people who habitually use alcohol (and, today, controlled substances)?
Pet. Op. Br. At 3-4. The government then proceeds to rely on the nation’s history and tradition of disarming “habitual drunkards” as justification for 922(g)(3). A more detailed blog post on Hemani is forthcoming later this week.
Cert Updates
The Court received four new cert petitions involving Second Amendment issues within the last week. The new cases include challenges to (1) the federal prohibition on possession of machineguns, (2) a state law felon-in-possession law, (3) the federal felon-in-possession ban, and (4) the federal restriction on the interstate transmission of firearms with obliterated serial numbers.
Challenges to semiautomatic weapons bans (Viramontes and National Association for Gun Rights) and LCM bans (Duncan and Gator’s Custom Guns) were relisted for review at conference on February 20. None were listed in the Orders List published on Monday, February 23, and they’ve been relisted for consideration at the February 27th conference. Additionally, some other cases, noted below, were listed for consideration at the March 6th conference. Those three are all challenges to the federal felon-in-possession law.
As always, new additions are highlighted in green. Pink reflects cases that have been listed for an upcoming conference.
|
Case Name |
Case Number |
On Appeal From |
Issue |
Status |
|
Taylor v. United States |
CA4 |
Whether a handgun affixed with a machinegun conversion device constitutes an “arm” under the Second Amendment’s plain text, thus requiring the government to justify the machinegun-possession prohibition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o)(1) by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation |
Pending – Filed 2/11/26 |
|
|
Gibbs v. Florida |
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District |
Whether a categorical ban on the possession of firearms by persons with prior felony convictions is unconstitutional as applied to a defendant with non-violent traffic offenses. (State law) |
Pending – Filed 2/10/26 |
|
|
Simpson v. United States |
CA5 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the federal statute that prohibits anyone who has been convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” from possessing a firearm, violates the Second Amendment as applied to an individual with a prior conviction for evading arrest with a vehicle. 2. Whether, for Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(1), courts can consider only the elements of a prior conviction— not alleged conduct—when determining whether an analogous historical tradition supports permanent disarmament |
Pending – Filed 2/11/26 |
|
|
Gomez v. United States |
CA2 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(k) violates the Second Amendment on its face. [Prohibition on interstate transmission of firearms with obliterated serial numbers] |
Pending – Filed 2/17/26 |
|
|
McCowan v. United States |
CA5 |
Challenge to 922(g)(1) – federal felon-in-possession ban |
Pending - Filed 2/3/26 |
|
|
Johnson v. United States |
CA4 |
Challenge to 922(g)(1) – federal felon-in-possession ban |
Pending – Filed 1/28/26 Listed for 3/6 Conference |
|
|
United States v. Mitchell |
CA5 |
Challenge to 922(g)(1) – federal felon-in-possession ban |
Pending – Filed 2/5/26 |
|
|
Williams v. United States |
CA2 |
Challenge to 922(g)(1) – federal felon-in-possession ban |
Pending – Filed 2/4/26 Listed for 3/6 Conference |
|
|
Reed v. United States |
CA11 |
Challenge to 922(g)(1) – federal felon-in-possession ban |
Pending – Filed 2/3/26 |
|
|
Hunter v. S.F. |
Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District |
Whether California’s practice of automatically and prolongedly disarming individuals subject to non-violent restraining orders violates the Second Amendment (as applied to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment) when, as in Petitioner’s case, there was no finding of any credible threat of physical harm and no history of violence, thus depriving an innocent person of the core right to keep and bear arms for self-defense for five years without proper constitutional guardrails. |
Pending – Filed 10/10/25, docketed 2/11/26 |
|
|
Alexis v. United States |
CA5 |
Challenge to 922(g)(1) – federal felon-in-possession ban |
Pending – Filed 2/5/26 |
|
|
Delgado v. United States |
CA2 |
Challenge to 922(g)(1) – federal felon-in-possession ban |
Pending – Filed 2/2/26 Listed for 3/6 Conference |
|
|
Morgan v. United States |
CA5 |
Challenge to 922(g)(1) – federal felon-in-possession ban |
Pending – Filed 1/23/26 Listed for 2/27 Conference |
|
|
England v. United States |
CA4 |
(1) Whether the “in common use for lawful purposes” measure for applying Second Amendment protections to certain firearms is determined as part of Bruen’s step one textual/conduct analysis, or Bruen’s step two historical analysis? (2) Whether 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), part of the National Firearms Act, violates the Second Amendment as applied to England’s possessing an unregistered short-barreled shotgun, where England introduced uncontradicted evidence proving that firearm is no more dangerous and unusual than comparable unregulated non-NFA weapons in common use for lawful purposes? (3) Whether the individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment applies only to “law-abiding citizens” who have no prior convictions? |
Pending – Filed 1/28 |
|
|
Aramboles v. United States |
CA2 |
Challenge to 922(g)(1) – federal felon-in-possession ban |
Pending – Filed 1/23/26 Listed for 2/27 Conference |
|
|
Heaggeans v. United States |
CA4 |
Challenge to 922(g)(1) – federal felon-in-possession ban |
Pending – Filed 2/2/26 |
|
|
Garner v. United States |
CA5 |
Challenge to 922(g)(1) – federal felon-in-possession ban |
Pending – Filed 1/27/26 Listed for 2/27 Conference |
|
|
Schoenthal v. Raoul |
CA7 |
Whether Illinois’ flat ban on ordinary citizens carrying firearms on public transportation violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. |
Pending – Filed 10/31/25 |
|
|
Viramontes v. Cook County, Ill. |
CA7 |
Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. |
Pending – filed 8/27/25 Relisted for 2/27 Conference |
|
|
National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont |
CA2 |
Whether a ban on the possession of AR-15-style rifles and firearm magazines with a capacity in excess of ten rounds—both of which are possessed by millions of law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes—violates the Second Amendment. |
Pending – filed 10/3/25 Relisted for 2/27 Conference |
|
|
Duncan v. Bonta |
CA9 |
1. Whether a ban on the possession of exceedingly common ammunition feeding devices violates the Second Amendment. 2. Whether a law dispossessing citizens, without compensation, of property that they lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the Takings Clause |
Pending – filed 5/20/25 Relisted for 2/27 Conference |
|
|
Gator’s Custom Guns Inc. v. Washington |
Supreme Court of Washington |
Whether ammunition feeding devices with the capacity to hold more than ten rounds are “Arms” presumptively entitled to constitutional protection under the plain text of the Second Amendment. |
Pending – filed 8/6/25 Relisted for 2/27 Conference |
|
|
Paris v. Second Amendment Foundation |
CA3 |
Do firearms laws imposing a minimum age of 21 violate the purported Second Amendment rights of 18-to-20-year-olds? |
Pending – no movement since November 2025 |
|
|
McCoy v. ATF |
CA4 |
Whether federal laws banning 18-to-20-year-olds from purchasing handguns from federally licensed firearm dealers violates the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep arms |
Pending – no movement since November 2025 |