SCOTUS Gun Watch 9/30/2026
Cert Updates
The October 2026 Term of the U.S. Supreme Court officially begins on Monday, October 5 (by law, the Term begins the first Monday in October). But the Court’s work has begun in earnest. On Monday this week, the Court held its Long Conference, at which the justices met to consider the roughly 2,000 petitions for review that built up since the summer recess began at the end of June. The Long Conference is the unofficial start to the new term. As we noted last week, the Justices were slated to discuss 57 firearms-related cases. See the full list of cases below.
Grants. The Court granted cert in Viramontes and Grant, two of the pending assault-weapons ban cases. Viramontes is on appeal out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and Grant on appeal from the Second Circuit. Interestingly, the Court granted cert on only the question presented in Viramontes, which inquires: “Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.” Here’s our recent summary of the issues at play.
New Petitions. The Court received nine new cert petitions on firearms law issues in the last week. They are: six challenges to the 922(g)(1) (federal felon-in-possession ban) and one to a state equivalent, one to 18 U.S.C. § 922(n), and one to 922(g)(5) (restrictions on possession by immigrants).
Upcoming Conferences. The Court’s next conference is scheduled for next Monday, September 28th, right before OT2026 formally begins. At that conference, the Justices presently plan to discuss 57 firearms-related cases:
- 39 of which challenge the federal felon-in-possession ban or a state equivalent on Second Amendment grounds,
- 3 regarding the constitutional protection of machine guns,
- 3 to the federal law banning possession by addicts and unlawful drug users (§ 922(g)(3)),
- 1 to the federal ban on possession of firearms by aliens lawfully present in the United States (§ 922(g)(5)),
- 1 to Washington state’s civil protection order statute,
- 1 to Maryland’s sensitive places restrictions,
- 1 to age restrictions (18-to-20-year-olds),
- 1 commerce clause challenge to 922(g)(1),
- 1 to shall issue licensing regimes,
- 1 to interstate licensing reciprocity,
- 1 arguing for a self-defense exception to person-based prohibitors,
- 1 to ban on possession by domestic violence misdemeanants,
- 1 challenging the federal ban on short-barreled shotguns,
- 1 to military courts’ ability to impose firearms restrictions as part of court martial sentencing, and
- 1 to New York’s prohibition on tasers and stun guns.
Additionally, the Court has listed 13 cases for discussion at the October 9th conference, eight of which are challenges to 922(g)(1), and three of which are 922(g)(3) cases.
As always, new additions are highlighted in green. Pink reflects cases that have been listed for an upcoming conference. Red means that the petition has been denied, and yellow means the petition has been granted. GVRs, or “grant, vacate, remand”, are colored in turquoise.
|
Pending Petitions – Listed for Conference in OT26 |
||||
|
Case Name |
Case Number |
On Appeal From |
Issue |
Status |
|
Mena v. United States |
CA8 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)—which permanently prohibits all unlawful users of controlled substances and all drug addicts from possessing firearms, without any pre-deprivation process or individualized finding of dangerousness—is consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and this Court’s historical-tradition test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, United States v. Rahimi, and United States v. Hemani |
Filed 8/25/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Johnson v. Jacobson |
CA8 |
1. Whether Americans must obtain a firearm license from each state to exercise their Second Amendment rights across the Nation. 2. Whether state firearm license reciprocity statutes that do not recognize firearm licenses issued by all other states are valid under N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). |
Filed 8/24/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Jund v. United States |
CA9 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which permanently bars firearm and ammunition possession by anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment, is subject to as-applied challenges under the Second Amendment, and whether it may constitutionally be applied to a person whose predicate convictions involved no violence and no threat of violence |
Filed 8/18/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Joshua v. United States |
CA8 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)—which permanently prohibits all unlawful users of controlled substances and all drug addicts from possessing firearms, without any pre-deprivation process or individualized finding of dangerousness—is consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and this Court’s historical-tradition test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, United States v. Rahimi, and United States v. Hemani |
Filed 8/18/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Pepple v. United States |
CA8 |
I. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is constitutional in all its applications or subject to as-applied challenges? II. If as-applied challenges are prohibited, is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) facially invalid because it is substantially overbroad and violates the Due Process Clause? |
Filed 8/17/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Richardson v. United States |
CA8 |
I. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is constitutional in all its applications or subject to as-applied challenges? II. If as-applied challenges are prohibited, is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) facially invalid because it is substantially overbroad and violates the Due Process Clause? |
Filed 8/17/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Cooper v. United States |
CA8 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (which prohibits any felon from possessing firearms) is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment |
Filed 8/14/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Licon v. United States |
CA5 |
Under Bruen’s first step, does an additional presumption of constitutionality exist for laws characterized as “shall-issue licensing regimes”? |
Filed 8/13/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Chuol v. United States |
CA8 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)—which permanently prohibits all unlawful users of controlled substances and all drug addicts from possessing firearms, without any pre-deprivation process or individualized finding of dangerousness—is consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and this Court’s historical-tradition test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, United States v. Rahimi, and United States v. Hemani. |
Filed 8/12/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Anderson v. United States |
CA4 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) is a violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution both facially and as applied to petitioner in view of the Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., v. Bruen |
Filed 8/10/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Chappell v. United States |
CA6 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1), which permanently disarms every person convicted of a felony, is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. |
Filed 8/9/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Fort v. United States |
CA1 |
Were Petitioner’s Second Amendment rights violated when the trial court granted the United States’s pretrial motion to preclude Petitioner from arguing self-defense at trial? |
Filed 8/7/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Riddle v. United States |
CA10 |
(1) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is consistent with the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in all cases, or rather is susceptible to as-applied challenges under the Second Amendment; and (2) Whether the Second Amendment prohibits the conviction of, and judgment against, Petitioner for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) given the nonviolent character of his prior predicate conviction |
Filed 8/3/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Prince v. United States |
CA7 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional under the Second Amendment and the Nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation |
Filed 7/31/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Watson v. United States |
CA7 |
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 Petitioner, whose prior felonies consist solely of nonviolent drug offenses. |
Filed 7/31/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Wilson v. United States |
CA5 |
First, whether the Fifth Circuit’s continued reliance on Hollis v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 2016) and refusal to require the government to prove a historical tradition of firearm regulation under this Court’s Second Amendment framework conflicts with N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)? Second, should the Court hold this petition pending the outcome of Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238 (U.S. Jun. 30, 2026), and Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566 (U.S. Jun. 30, 2026), given lower courts’ determinations that for Second Amendment purposes, AR-15’s are indistinguishable from M16 machineguns? |
Filed 7/29/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Porter v. United States |
CA5 |
1. Whether an officer’s access of an automatic license plate reader database, which indiscriminately collects and stores personally identifying information and location history and allows for the access of such information retrospectively, constitutes a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. 2. Whether a firearm that is capable of automatic fire is an “Arm[]” within the meaning of the Second Amendment |
Filed 7/15/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Davis v. United States |
CA10 |
Whether Mr. Davis’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment on its face. |
Filed 7/13/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Vecera v. United States |
CA5 |
1) Does § 922(g)(1) violate the Second Amendment, facially or as applied to Vecera? 2) Does § 922(g)(1) exceed Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause? |
Filed 7/9/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Calce v. City of New York |
CA2 |
1. Whether a challenger to a ban on a type of arm must demonstrate that the arm is “in common use” to establish that the ban implicates the Second Amendment’s plain text. 2. Whether the challenged New York State and New York City bans on electronic arms such as tasers and stun guns implicate the Second Amendment’s plain text. 3. Whether the challenged New York State and New York City bans on electronic arms such as tasers and stun guns violate the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. |
Filed 7/7/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Pearson v. United States |
CA5 |
1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment. 2. Whether Congress may criminalize intrastate firearm possession based solely on the firearm crossing state lines at some point before the defendant came to possess it. 3. Whether, under abuse-of-discretion review and absent a finding of harmlessness, a court of appeals must vacate and remand when the sentencing record suggests the district court impermissibly weighed a sentencing factor |
Filed 7/6/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Salas-Martinez v. Texas |
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Texas and at least eight other states have laws making it illegal (with very narrow exceptions) for citizens between the ages of eighteen and twenty to carry a handgun outside of the home, even when carried solely for personal protection. Did this Court’s opinion issued in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), invalidate Texas Penal Code section 46.02 and similar laws? |
Filed 7/3/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Swan v. United States |
CA10 |
(1) Whether 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) is consistent with the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in all cases, or rather is susceptible to as-applied challenges under the Second Amendment; and (2) Whether the Second Amendment prohibits the conviction of, and judgment against, petitioner for violating 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) given the nonviolent character of his prior predicate convictions. |
Filed 7/2/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Shepherd v. United States |
CA5 |
Whether short-barreled shotguns are “arms” protected by the Second Amendment. |
Filed 6/29/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
White v. United States |
CA2 |
Is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) susceptible to an as-applied challenge under the Second Amendment where it results in disarming an American citizen acting in self-defense due to a years-old predicate conviction? |
Filed 6/29/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Cisneros v. United States |
CA10 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits felons from possessing firearms or ammunition, violates the Second Amendment—either on its face or as applied to the Petitioner. |
Filed 6/26/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Williams v. United States |
CA2 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face or as applied to petitioner because, consistent with the Second Amendment, the federal government may not permanently disarm citizens whose prior felony convictions were for nonviolent offenses only |
Filed 6/24/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Gaddy v. United States |
CA8 |
Whether, as the Eighth Circuit held, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (which prohibits any felon from possessing firearms) is invariably constitutional both facially and as applied to any defendant, no matter the case-specific circumstances? |
Filed 6/24/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Garrett v. United States |
CA8 |
Whether, as the Eighth Circuit held, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (which prohibits any felon from possessing firearms) is invariably constitutional both facially and as applied to any defendant, no matter the case-specific circumstances? |
Filed 6/24/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Price v. United States |
CA8 |
1. Whether a criminal defendant may raise an as-applied Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 2. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s lifetime ban on firearm possession for all individuals previously convicted of any felony offense is an unconstitutional infringement of the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment |
Filed 6/23/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Bland v. United States |
CA4 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s lifetime ban on firearm possession for all individuals previously convicted of a felony violates the Second Amendment, either facially or as applied to the Petitioner. |
Filed 6/22/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Cerrillo v. United States |
CA5 |
I. Whether 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment? II. Whether 18 U.S.C. §922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that has ever crossed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, if it is facially unconstitutional? |
Filed 6/22/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Williamson v. United States |
|
CA5 |
1. Federal law bans the possession of firearms by anyone who has ever been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). What rule(s) should the lower courts apply when evaluating whether a prosecution or conviction under that statute is consistent with the Second Amendment to the Constitution? 2. Under the prevailing interpretation of the nexus-with-commerce element of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), a former felon possesses “in or affecting commerce” a firearm if the firearm was made in another state or country. Does Congress have the constitutional authority to enact such a law? |
Filed 6/22/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
Butts v. United States |
CA9 |
Is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s categorical ban on the possession of firearms unconstitutional as applied to a non-violent defendant, who indisputably possessed firearms solely for hunting and sporting purposes? |
Filed 6/17/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Rubio-Castillo v. United States |
CA5 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(5)(B), which prohibits the possession of firearms by aliens lawfully present in the United States, comports with the Second Amendment. |
Filed 6/15/26 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Finney v. United States |
CA4 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s lifetime ban on firearm possession for all individuals previously convicted of a felony violates the Second Amendment, either facially or as applied to the Petitioner |
Filed 6/10/26 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Jackson v. United States |
CA5 |
1. Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s lifetime ban on the possession of firearms by all felons violate the Second Amendment on its face and as applied to Jackson? 2. Can Congress criminalize intrastate possession of a firearm solely because it crossed state lines at some point before it came into a person’s possession? |
Filed 6/9/26 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Fleming v. Florida |
Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida |
Whether a statute banning convicted nonviolent felons from possessing a firearm violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. |
Filed 6/9/26 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Fisher v. United States |
CA4 |
Does a handgun or other bearable firearm that is capable of automatic fire qualify as an “arm” within the meaning of the Second Amendment under step one of the Bruen framework? |
Filed 6/8/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Jones v. United States |
CA2 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face or as applied to Petitioner because, consistent with the Second Amendment, the federal government may not permanently disarm citizens whose prior felony convictions were for nonviolent offenses only |
Filed 6/8/26 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Nunamaker v. United States |
CA10 |
1. Whether the Tenth Circuit’s open rejection of Bruen, in reliance upon its pre-Bruen precedent, is appropriate in light of the current circuit split. 2. What is the appropriate standard to be applied when courts consider whether a particular prior felony offense allows Congress to permanently disarm an individual under penalty of imprisonment? |
Filed 6/8/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Meyer v. United States |
CA11 |
(1) Whether after New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) and United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), a criminal defendant may raise an as-applied Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (2) If so, whether under the Bruen/Rahimi methodology, the Second Amendment is unconstitutional as applied to a defendant like Petitioner with only non-violent priors |
Filed 6/3/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Rojo v. United States |
CA9 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s categorical ban on the possession of firearms by felons is unconstitutional as applied to a defendant with non-violent predicate offenses underlying his conviction |
Filed 6/3/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Perez v. United States |
CA9 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s categorical ban on the possession of firearms by felons is unconstitutional as applied to a defendant with non-violent predicate offenses underlying his conviction |
Filed 6/2/26 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Landrum v. United States |
CA5 |
1. Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violate the Second Amendment on its face or as applied to Petitioner? 2. Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) exceed Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause on its face or as applied to Petitioner’s intrastate possession of a firearm? |
Filed 6/2/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference
|
|
|
Greene v. United States |
CA4 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s lifetime ban on firearm possession for all individuals previously convicted of a felony violates the Second Amendment, either facially or as applied to the Petitioner |
Filed 6/1/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Rochon v. United States |
CA9 |
Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), facially and as applied to Mr. Rochon, violate the Second Amendment? |
Filed 5/28/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Green v. United States |
CA9 |
(1) Whether courts may categorically reject Second Amendment as-applied challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) based solely on felony status, or whether New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024) require an individualized historical inquiry into whether the petitioner may be permanently disarmed. (2) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s commerce element is satisfied by the mere historical fact that a firearm or ammunition once crossed state lines, or whether the statute and the Commerce Clause require a meaningful, contemporary connection between the defendant’s possession and interstate commerce |
Filed 5/23/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Bynes v. Florida |
Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida |
Whether a statute imposing on all convicted felons a lifetime ban on possession of a firearm or ammunition with no individualized finding of dangerousness violates the Second Amendment? |
Filed 5/14/26 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
McCoy v. United States |
CA2 |
Is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to McCoy? |
Filed 5/12/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Mitchell v. United States |
CA8 |
(1) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is constitutional in all its applications or is it subject to as-applied challenges? (2) If as-applied challenges are prohibited, is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) facially invalid because it violates the Due Process Clause and is substantially overbroad? (3) Whether Stinson v. United States still accurately states the level of deference due to the Commentary of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines? |
Filed 4/28/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Minor v. United States |
|
CA1 |
Whether this court should grant the petition to determine whether the second amendment protects domestic violence misdemeanants from a lifetime ban on firearms where there has been no judicial finding of a credible threat to the safety of another. |
Filed 4/27/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
United States v. Hembree |
CA5 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of a firearm by a person who has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent. |
Filed 4/24/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Novotny v. Moore |
CA4 |
Whether Maryland’s numerous prohibitions on carrying firearms in many places frequented by the general public violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments |
Filed 4/15/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Storey v. United States |
CA11 |
Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) exceed Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, facially and as applied to Petitioner Samuel Storey’s intrastate possession? |
Filed 4/2 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Myslow v. United States |
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces |
Whether military courts of criminal appeals have authority under 10 U.S.C. § 866(d)(2) to correct an unconstitutional firearms ban annotated after entry of judgment. |
Filed 3/31 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Pestarino v. Pestarino |
Washington Supreme Court |
Whether Washington’s civil protection order statute, which precludes the subject of such order from having firearms, violates the Second Amendment (paraphrased) |
Filed 1/6/2026 Listed for 9/28/2026 conference |
|
|
Jefferson v. United States |
CA4 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s lifetime ban on firearm possession for all individuals previously convicted of a felony violates the Second Amendment, either facially or as applied to the Petitioner |
Filed 9/16/2026 Listed for 10/9/2026 conference |
|
|
Tardieff v. United States |
CA5 |
Is the lifetime ban on possession of firearms by all felons, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), plainly unconstitutional on its face under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), because it is permanent and applies to all persons convicted of felonies? |
Filed 9/9/2026 Listed for 10/9/2026 conference |
|
|
Quadell-Lee Gaines v. United States |
CA8 |
Whether the identity of the sovereign that enacted a historical firearm regulation is part of Bruen’s “relevantly similar” inquiry, so that a federal firearm prohibition must be justified by a federal historical tradition rather than by the regulatory history of the colonies, the States, and their political subdivisions |
Filed 9/3/2026 Listed for 10/9/2026 conference
|
|
|
Zapata v. United States |
CA8 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user” of “any controlled substance,” violates the Second Amendment on its face |
Filed 9/3/2026 Listed for 10/9/2026 conference
|
|
|
Higgins v. United States |
CA8 |
I. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is constitutional in all its applications or subject to as-applied challenges? II. If as-applied challenges are prohibited, is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) facially invalid because it is substantially overbroad and violates the Due Process Clause? |
Filed 9/3/2026 Listed for 10/9/2026 conference
|
|
|
Torgerson v. United States |
CA8 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user” of “any controlled substance,” violates the Second Amendment on its face |
Filed 9/2/2026 Listed for 10/9/2026 conference |
|
|
Cook v. United States |
CA4 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s lifetime ban on firearm possession for all individuals previously convicted of a felony violates the Second Amendment, either facially or as applied to the Petitioner |
Filed 8/31/2026 Listed for 10/9/2026 conference |
|
|
Johnson v. United States |
CA10 |
Whether an individual whose sole predicate felony is a non-violent offense may bring an as applied Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1)’s permanent dispossession of the right to keep and bear arms |
Filed 8/27/2026 Listed for 10/9/2026 conference |
|
|
Mabrey v. United States |
CA4 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s lifetime ban on firearm possession for all individuals previously convicted of a felony violates the Second Amendment, either facially or as applied to the Petitioner. |
Filed 8/26/2026 Listed for 10/9/2026 conference |
|
|
Williams v. Illinois |
App. Ct. of Illinois, First Dist |
Does New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 38 n.9 (2022), require courts to apply Bruen’s mandated two-step historical analysis to determine the constitutionality of criminal penalties related to a state’s “shall issue” concealed carry licensing regime? |
Filed 8/18/2026 Listed for 10/9/2026 conference |
|
|
Jones v. United States |
CA9 |
Whether the Ninth Circuit’s refusal to consider as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(1) violates this Court’s binding precedent |
Filed 7/22/2026 Listed for 10/9/2026 conference |
|
|
Ledvina v. United States |
CA8 |
1. Whether the Second Amendment precludes applying 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)/the statute prohibiting the possession of firearms by unlawful users of controlled substances/ to the Petitioner and a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A), the statute criminalizing false representations with respect to information required to be kept in the records of a firearms dealer, for falsely representing that Petitioner was not an unlawful user. 2. Whether the term "unlawful user" is unconstitutionally vague. 3. Whether the court of appeals erred by deciding the constitutional issues without passing on the nonconstitutional issues |
Filed 7/17/2026 Listed for 10/9/2026 conference |
|
|
Nuno-Lopez v. United States |
CA10 |
Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violate the Second Amendment on its face or as applied to Mr. Nuño-Lopez? |
Filed 6/2/2026 Listed for 10/9/2026 conference |
|
|
Pending Petitions |
||||
|
Case Name |
Case Number |
On Appeal From |
Issue |
Status |
|
Ball v. United States |
CA2 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment, either on its face or as applied |
Filed 9/23/2026 |
|
|
Foster v. United States |
CA2 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment on its face or as applied to Petitioner because the federal government may not permanently disarm citizens whose prior felony convictions were for nonviolent offenses only |
Filed 9/22/2026 |
|
|
Hunter v. United States |
CA5 |
3. Does Petitioner Kelsey Dwayne Hunter’s 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) conviction violate the Second Amendment? 4. May Congress criminalize intrastate firearm possession based solely on the fact that the firearm crossed state lines at some point before the defendant possessed it? |
Filed 9/21/2026 |
|
|
Barge v. United States |
CA7 |
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 Petitioner, based solely on a decade old nonviolent drug distribution conviction |
Filed 9/21/2026 |
|
|
Nolan v. United States |
CA4 |
1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s lifetime ban on firearm possession for all individuals previously convicted of a felony violates the Second Amendment as applied to the Petitioner. 2. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits the possession of any firearm that has, at some point, travelled in interstate commerce, exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution |
Filed 9/21/2026 |
|
|
Gavalo v. United States |
CA2 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because, consistent with the Second Amendment, the federal government may not permanently disarm citizens simply for incurring a felony conviction |
Filed 9/17/2026 |
|
|
Trevino v. United States |
CA10 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(n)’s prohibition on the receipt of firearms and ammunition while under indictment violates the Second Amendment |
Filed 9/17/2026 |
|
|
Rebollar-Osorio v. United States |
CA1 |
A federal statute prohibits an “alien” who is “illegally or unlawfully in the United States” from possessing any firearm or ammunition. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). The Petitioner is an undocumented Mexican citizen who came to the United States as a child and has lived in Maine for over a decade. During a traffic stop for speeding, police discovered a firearm and ammunition in the vehicle he was driving. The question presented is whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A) may be enforced against Petitioner consistent with the Second Amendment |
Filed 9/17/2026 |
|
|
Christian, et al. v. James |
CA2 |
1. Whether New York’s ban on the possession of firearms in public parks violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. 2. Whether the Second Circuit erred in rejecting Petitioners’ challenge to New York’s undifferentiated ban on possession of firearms in public parks based on a conclusion that history would support banning possession of firearms in urban parks. 3. Whether the Second Circuit erred in holding that firearms laws from the latter half of the 19th century can establish a tradition of regulation limiting the scope of the right to keep and bear arms in the absence of historical support from the Founding era |
Filed 9/16/2026 |
|
|
Colie v. Virginia |
Supreme Court of Virginia |
1. Restriction of a criminal legal defense violates due process if it “offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.” Kahler v. Kansas, 589 U.S. 271, 279 (2020) (quoting Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790, 798 (1952)). Does the right to self-defense meet that test, by virtue of Justice Scalia’s extensively-catalogued recognition of self-defense as an “inherent,” “ancient” and “common law” right in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and subsequent cases? If so, did the Virginia courts violate due process by effectively stopping Mr. Colie’s jury from considering self-defense, when deliberating on the only remaining allegation against him: unlawful discharge of a firearm? (After acquitting Mr. Colie of all other criminal charges on the basis of bona fide self-defense?) 2. United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (1984), holds that a conviction shall not be disturbed merely because it is inconsistent with an acquittal on a related count, because the inconsistency may result from mistake, compromise, or lenity from the jury. However, Footnote 8 of that opinion reserved whether the same tolerance applies where two verdicts are not merely inconsistent but logically exclusive. Id. at 69 n.8. Here, the jury acquitted Mr. Colie of every criminal allegation arising from his single act of firing his firearm, but for one: unlawful discharge of the ii firearm. But the jury’s numerous acquittals here are clearly explained by self-defense rather than mistake, compromise, or lenity. Does due process require vacatur of the sole conviction, consistent with Powell’s Footnote 8 exception, where the jury’s verdicts as a whole rationally convey that they found the act legally justified by self-defense, foreclosing lawful conviction? |
Filed 9/8/2026 |
|
|
Kelly v. United States |
CA5 |
1. Whether this Court should grant, vacate, and remand for reconsideration because of an intervening circuit decision that may invalidate precedent on which the panel opinion below relies. 2. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment. 3. Whether Congress may criminalize intrastate firearm possession based solely on the firearm crossing state lines at some point before the defendant came to possess it |
Filed 9/8/2026 |
|
|
Holloway v. Brown |
Supreme Court of Washington
|
Does the State of Washington’s total ban on the possession of a firearm following a second misdemeanor conviction within seven years for driving under the influence violate the Second Amendment? |
Filed 9/2/2026 |
|
|
Thomas v. United States |
CA5 |
1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment. 2. Whether Congress may criminalize intrastate possession of ammunition based solely on the ammunition crossing state lines at some point before the defendant came to possess it. 3. Whether at a minimum this Court should grant, vacate, and remand for reconsideration because of an intervening circuit decision that may invalidate precedent on which the panel opinion below relies |
Filed 8/27/2026 |
|
|
Peguero v. New York |
Appellate Division, Sup. Ct. of New York, First Judicial Dep’t |
Does the Second Amendment bar criminal prosecution for unlicensed-firearm possession where the defendant was subject to an unconstitutional firearms-licensing law and there were otherwise no lawful bases for disarming the defendant? |
Filed 8/26/2026 |
|
|
Walker v. United States |
CA9 |
1. Whether a court may reject a Second Amendment claim involving conduct covered by the Amendment's plain text without first requiring the Government to rebut the presumption that the challenged restriction is unconstitutional. 2. Whether a court may sua sponte dismiss a plausible Second Amendment claim at the pleading stage before requiring the Government to answer and carry its constitutional burden to overcome that presumption |
Filed 8/10/2026 |
|
|
Jones v. United States |
CA11 |
Whether a jurisdictional element satisfied by a de minimis connection to interstate commerce, such as 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)’s requirement that a prohibited person possess a firearm “in or affecting commerce,” is sufficient to bring a purely local, non-economic criminal offense within Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause |
Filed 9/1/2026 |
|
|
Cervantes v. United States |
CA5 |
I. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that has ever crossed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, if it is facially unconstitutional? II. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment? |
Filed 8/31/2026 |
|
|
Beckwith, et al. v. Frey |
CA1 |
Whether forcing law-abiding citizens who have already passed a background check to wait out a multi-day cooling-off period before taking possession of a firearm violates the Second Amendment. |
Filed 8/25/2026 |
|
|
Holman v. United States |
CA4 |
I. The Second Amendment guarantees all citizens the right to bear arms. The circuits are divided, however, on whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) runs afoul of that right by blanketly banning every convicted felon from possessing firearms. The question presented here is whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional, and if so, when it can be applied constitutionally. II. When applying the Guidelines, Stinson mandates deference to the Commentary. But since this Court issued Kisor v. Wilkie, circuit courts have grappled with the level of deference required when interpreting and applying the Guidelines. The question presented here is whether deference to the Guidelines Commentary is appropriate and, if so, under what circumstances? |
Filed 8/24/2026 |
|
|
Morgan v. United States |
CA5 |
I. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment? II. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that has ever crossed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, if it is facially unconstitutional? III. Whether at minimum this Court should grant, vacate, and remand for reconsideration because of an intervening circuit decision that may invalidate the Commerce Clause precedent on which the panel opinion below relies? |
Filed 8/14/2026 |
|
|
Celestine v. United States |
CA5 |
1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on mere firearm possession exceeds the scope of Congress’s power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, both facially and applied to Mr. Celestine and, relatedly, whether this Court should revisit Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 575 (1977), in light of the Court’s more recent Commerce Clause precedent. 2. Whether § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutionally vague, either facially or as applied to Mr. Celestine, and, more fundamentally, whether a statute prohibiting conduct protected by the Second Amendment should be subject to facial or as-applied void-for-vagueness scrutiny. 3. Whether § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, either facially or as applied to Mr. Celestine |
Filed 8/12/2026 |
|
|
White v. United States |
CA5 |
1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment. 2. Whether Congress may criminalize intrastate firearm possession based solely on the firearm crossing state lines at some point before the defendant came to possess it. 3. Whether at minimum this Court should grant, vacate, and remand for reconsideration because of an intervening circuit decision that may invalidate precedent on which the panel opinion below relies |
Filed 8/3/2026 |
|
|
Ayala v. United States |
CA11 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, facially and as applied to intrastate firearm and ammunition possession? |
Filed 8/3/2026 |
|
|
Taylor v. United States |
CA5 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment? Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that has ever crossed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, if it is facially unconstitutional? |
Filed 8/3/2026 |
|
|
Coleman v. United States |
CA11 |
Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess an AR-15 platform semiautomatic rifle outfitted with a conversion device or a conversion device which allows an AR-15 platform semiautomatic rifle to shoot ten times with a single pull of the trigger? |
Filed 7/31/2026 |
|
|
Antunez-Galarza v. United States |
CA11 |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, facially and as applied to intrastate firearm possession? |
Filed 7/24/2026 |
|
|
Stewart v. United States |
CA11 |
1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, facially and as applied to intrastate firearm possession? 2. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is subject to as-applied challenges and violates the Second Amendment as applied to a defendant whose prior felony convictions are nonviolent? |
Filed 7/20/2026 |
|
|
Burns v. United States |
CA5 |
1. Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violate the Second Amendment on its face? 2. Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) exceed Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause on its face or as applied to Petitioner’s intrastate possession of a firearm? |
Filed 7/16/2026 |
|
|
Moore v. United States |
CA5 |
1. Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violate the Second Amendment on its face or as applied to Petitioner? 2. Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) exceed Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause on its face or as applied to Petitioner’s intrastate possession of a firearm? |
Filed 7/21/2026 |
|
|
GVRs |
||||
|
OT26 entries forthcoming |
|
|
|
|
|
OT 2026 Grants |
||||
|
Viramontes v. Cook County, Ill. |
CA7 |
Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. |
Granted 6/30
|
|
|
Grant v. Higgins |
CA2 |
Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution guarantee the right to possess semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in the country, the AR-15. |
Granted 6/30 *Consolidated with Viramontes, granted only as to the question presented in Viramontes
|
|
|
Beaird v. United States |
CA5 |
(1) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment; (2) whether Stinson v. United States still accurately states the level of deference due to the Commentary of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines; and (3) whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that has ever crossed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, if it is facially unconstitutional. |
Granted 4/20 (only as to Question 2) |
|
|
Additional Petitions We’re Watching |
||||
|
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. |
Filed 10/3/25 Listed for 6/29 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 |
Filed 5/20/25 Listed for 6/29 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. |
Filed 8/6/25 Listed for 6/29 Conference
|
|
|
OT 2026 Denials |
||||
|
OT26 entries forthcoming |
|
|
|
|
|
Voluntary Dismissals |
||||
|
OT26 entries forthcoming |
|
|
|
|