Overview
- The January 27 ruling in United States v. Hembree holds that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) cannot be applied to a simple meth possession conviction, with Judge Higginson writing for a panel joined by Judges Willett and Engelhardt.
- The court emphasized under Rahimi that the government bears the burden to show a modern restriction is relevantly similar to historical laws and found the offered comparators inadequate.
- Purported analogues such as laws punishing receipt of a stolen horse, mail theft, and counterfeiting were rejected as theft and fraud offenses unrelated to drug possession or firearm regulation.
- The opinion noted that possession of substances like opium was not unlawful at the Founding and that broad drug prohibitions largely arose in the 20th century, undermining historical support for disarmament.
- Judge Willett concurred to question whether § 922(g)(1) rests on an enumerated congressional power, as the Supreme Court prepares to hear United States v. Hemani on March 2, with Cato and the Reason Foundation urging the justices to strike § 922(g)(3) as ahistorical, vague, and overbroad.