Pending Petitions
Case Name
Case Number
On Appeal From
Issue
Status
Hall v. United States
CA5
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment?
Filed 9/30/2026
Wallace v. United States
CA10
Question 1: Whether the Second Amendment permits an as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) when that challenge is premised on the non-violent and non-dangerous nature of the defendant’s prior conviction.
Question 2: If as-applied challenges can succeed, what is the standard by which courts should evaluate a person’s prior convictions to determine if those convictions Congress to disarm that person under penalty of imprisonment?
Filed 9/30/2026
Daley v. Florida
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Whether a state statute that bans all convicted felons from possessing firearms violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
Filed 9/28/2026
Balogh v. New York
Appellate Division, Supreme Court 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 9/23/2026
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
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
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
Denied 10/5/2026
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).
Denied 10/5/2026
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
Denied 10/5/2026
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
Denied 10/5/2026
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?
Denied 10/5/2026
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?
Denied 10/5/2026
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
Denied 10/5/2026
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”?
Denied 10/5/2026
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.
Denied 10/5/2026
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
Denied 10/5/2026
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.
Denied 10/5/2026
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?
Denied 10/5/2026
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
Denied 10/5/2026
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
Denied 10/5/2026
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.
Denied 10/5/2026
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.
Denied 10/5/2026
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?
Denied 10/5/2026
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
Denied 10/5/2026
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?
Denied 10/5/2026
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.
Denied 10/5/2026
Shepherd v. United States
CA5
Whether short-barreled shotguns are “arms” protected by the Second Amendment.
Denied 10/5/2026
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?
Denied 10/5/2026
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.
Denied 10/5/2026
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
Denied 10/5/2026
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?
Denied 10/5/2026
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?
Denied 10/5/2026
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
Denied 10/5/2026
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.
Denied 10/5/2026
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?
Denied 10/5/2026
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?
Denied 10/5/2026
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?
Denied 10/5/2026
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.
Denied 10/5/2026
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
Denied 10/5/2026
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?
Denied 10/5/2026
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.
Denied 10/5/2026
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
Denied 10/5/2026
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?
Denied 10/5/2026
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
Denied 10/5/2026
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
Denied 10/5/2026
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
Denied 10/5/2026
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
Denied 10/5/2026
Rochon v. United States
CA9
Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), facially and as applied to Mr. Rochon, violate the Second Amendment?
Denied 10/5/2026
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
Denied 10/5/2026
McCoy v. United States
CA2
Is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to McCoy?
Denied 10/5/2026
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.
Denied 10/5/2026
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?
Denied 10/5/2026
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.
Denied 10/5/2026
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)
Denied 10/5/2026
Voluntary Dismissals
OT26 entries forthcoming
