2ASCOTUS Watch: Week of 2/9

SCOTUS Watch: Week of 2/9

-



Since our last update, the Court has issued no orders on pending cert petitions involving Second Amendment issues. We’re still waiting on orders for the cases challenging LCM bans (Duncan and Gator’s Custom Guns), semiautomatic weapons bans (Viramontes and National Association for Gun Rights), age restrictions (Paris and McCoy), and laws banning carry on public transit (Schoenthal), in addition to two challenges to the federal felon-in-possession ban (Vincent and Thompson). In January, the Court denied cert in tens of challenges to the felon-in-possession statute.

New Cert Petitions

All of the new cert petitions include challenges to the federal felon-in-possession ban. England v. United States involves two additional questions about the meaning of “common use” from Heller and the constitutionality of banning unregistered short-barreled shotguns.

Delgado v. United States, No. 25-6732

This petition challenges 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (the federal felon-in-possession ban) as violating the Second Amendment.

Question presented: In light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), does § 922(g)(1) violate the Second Amendment, either on its face or as applied to petitioner?

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Delgado is represented by the Federal Public Defender.

Morgan v. United States, No. 25-6677

This petition challenges 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (the federal felon-in-possession ban) as violating the Second Amendment.  Questions presented:

  • 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?
  • Is the lifetime ban on possession of firearms by all felons, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), unconstitutional as applied to individuals whose predicate convictions involve conduct that was not historically subject to permanent disarmament at the founding?

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Morgan is represented by the Federal Public Defender.

England v. United States, No. 25-6711

The three questions presented by this petition are:

  • 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?
  • 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?
  • 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?

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Defendant England is represented by the Federal Public Defender.

Aramboles v. United States, No. 25-6682

This petition challenges 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (the federal felon-in-possession ban) as violating the Second Amendment. Question presented: “In light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), does § 922(g)(1) violate the Second Amendment, either on its face or as applied to Petitioner, a United States citizen who has no violent prior felony convictions?”

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Defendant Aramboles is represented by the Federal Public Defender.

Heaggeans v. United States, No. 25-6729

This petition also challenges the federal felon-in-possession statute.

Question presented: “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.”

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Defendant Heaggeans is represented by the Federal Public Defender.

Garner v. United States, No. 25-6698

This petition presents a facial challenge to the federal felon-in-possession statute.

Question presented: “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?”

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Defendant Garner is represented by the Federal Public Defender.

Additional Developments

Other cases

Koons v. New Jersey Attorney General.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, will hear oral arguments on Wednesday, February 11 at 9:00 AM ET in Koons. The case involves a challenge to New Jersey’s permitting regime and sensitive places restrictions. New Jersey enacted a law that prohibits the carrying of firearms in 25 sensitive places—

  • Within 100 feet of a permitted public gathering;
  • School, college, university or educational institution, as well as on school buses;
  • Child care facilities including day care centers;
  • Nursery schools, pre-schools, zoos, and summer camps;
  • State, county or local government land designated as a gun free zone, including beaches, parks, or recreation areas like playgrounds;
  • Youth sports events;
  • Public libraries and museums;
  • Bars and restaurants where alcohol is served;
  • Entertainment venues like theaters, stadiums, arenas and racetracks;
  • Casinos and other gaming venues, including hotels to which they are attached;
  • Health care facilities like hospitals, treatment or diagnostic centers, residential healthcare facilities, and the like;
  • Airports and public transportation hubs;
  • Facilities licensed or regulated by the NJ Departments of Human Services, Health or Children and Families that provides treatment for addiction or mental health conditions;
  • TV and film sets; and
  • Private property held open to the public unless the property owner provides his explicit consent to carry.

The panel, comprised of Judges Krause, Porter, and Chung, upheld the majority of the sensitive places laws but kept in place the injunction against the state’s liability insurance requirement for permit holders, the requirement to contribute to the victims of crime compensation fund, and private property held open to the public absent owner’s consent. The court held that petitioners lacked standing to challenge the prohibition on carrying firearms onto TV and movie sets. Judge Porter issued a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. On December 11, 2025, a majority of the Third Circuit voted to rehear the case en banc.

Hembree v. United States.  On January 27, a Fifth Circuit panel struck down the federal felon-in-possession law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) as applied to the defendant who had been convicted of unlawfully possessing methamphetamine. Judges Higginson, Willett, and Engelhardt issued the opinion, authored by Judge Higginson. 

The Fifth Circuit agreed with defendant that “the government has not and cannot prove that disarming Hembree based on his conviction for possession of methamphetamine fits within this country’s traditional regulation of firearms.” The chief inquiry, according to the Fifth Circuit, is whether the crime of which defendant was convicted was a “violent” one.  The court has taken a “felony-by-felony” approach to deciding whether the statute is constitutional as-applied to the defendant, citing recent decisions holding that predicate felonies involving “present” intoxication with marijuana do not pass constitutional muster, but those that involved “habitual” intoxication do.  It seems likely that the federal government will appeal this ruling, either to the en banc Fifth Circuit or to the Supreme Court.

Media Coverage

Alex Rivenbark at SCOTUSblog examined the cert petitions involving the Second Amendment pending before the Supreme Court this term. Check out her coverage here.



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest news

Is This 3D-Printed Training Pistol Worth It? » Concealed Carry Inc

I’ve been seeing Grip Keeper products advertised more and more, so I reached out to the company to...

The Instructor Raising the Training Standard

There are a lot of people walking around with a badge, a carry permit, or both, who have...

SCOTUS Watch 2/2 & Other Developments

It’s February and we’re still awaiting orders on the Large...

The Foundation Of Your EDC Setup » Concealed Carry Inc

If you've been carrying concealed for any length of time, you've probably realized that your regular belt just...

Century Arms AP5 Review: MP5 Performance for Less

Images by the author H&K’s iconic MP5 submachine gun has garnered a sterling reputation among folks who need it....

Second Amendment scholars, there’s new work to be done

This guest post does not necessarily reflect the views of...

Must read


Deprecated: str_contains(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($haystack) of type string is deprecated in /home/nationalgunowner/public_html/thegunpeople.com/wp-includes/blocks.php on line 2009

Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/nationalgunowner/public_html/thegunpeople.com/wp-includes/class-wp-block-parser.php on line 247

Deprecated: strlen(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/nationalgunowner/public_html/thegunpeople.com/wp-includes/class-wp-block-parser.php on line 324

Choosing Your First Hunting Rifle

By Adam Scepaniak Posted in #Guns #Hunting If you are new...

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you