Gun Rights
Second Amendment Cases at the Supreme Court That Could Expand Felon Gun Rights
The Supreme Court is heading into its September 28, 2026 conference with an unusually large cluster of petitions asking the same basic Second Amendment question: can the federal government permanently disarm every person who has ever been convicted of a felony, or must courts allow individualized challenges for people whose prior crimes were nonviolent?
Quick answerAs of September 14, 2026, the Supreme Court has not yet granted a felon-specific 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) case for full merits briefing and oral argument. But several petitions are already distributed for the Court’s September 28 conference. The strongest cases to watch include United States v. Hembree, Swan v. United States, Butts v. United States, Perez v. United States, and Storey v. United States. A grant in one or more could reshape firearm rights for people with old or nonviolent felony convictions.
This matters because federal courts are now openly divided. The Third and Fifth Circuits have recognized meaningful as-applied Second Amendment challenges in some cases, while other circuits continue to treat the federal felon-in-possession law as effectively categorical. The Supreme Court now has multiple vehicles for resolving that split.
1. United States v. Hembree: the most direct nonviolent-felony case
Supreme Court No. 25-1219 may be the most important pending case for nonviolent felons. Charles Hembree’s only predicate felony was a 2018 Mississippi conviction for simple possession of methamphetamine. The Fifth Circuit held that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional as applied to him because the government failed to identify a historical tradition supporting permanent disarmament based solely on simple drug possession.
The United States—not Hembree—petitioned the Supreme Court. The government’s question is whether § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to Hembree. The petition is distributed for the September 28, 2026 conference.
Why it could expand felon gun rights: if the Supreme Court leaves the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning intact, or grants the case and recognizes individualized as-applied challenges for nonviolent offenders, Hembree could become a national framework for arguing that a felony label alone is not enough.
View the Supreme Court docket for United States v. Hembree →
2. Swan v. United States: old, nonviolent convictions and individualized review
Supreme Court No. 26-26 asks whether § 922(g)(1) is subject to as-applied Second Amendment challenges and whether the statute is unconstitutional as applied to John Swan, whose qualifying prior convictions were nonviolent. Swan’s petition emphasizes that his only conviction in the decade before the firearm case was a misdemeanor traffic offense.
The petition was distributed for the September 28 conference. Swan directly asks the Court to resolve whether people with nonviolent predicates must be allowed to show that permanent disarmament is inconsistent with the historical tradition required by Bruen.
Why it matters: a favorable ruling could create a nationwide path for old nonviolent felony convictions to be reviewed individually instead of automatically producing a lifetime federal firearm ban.
View the Supreme Court docket for Swan v. United States →
3. Butts v. United States: nonviolent felon possessing guns for hunting and sport
Supreme Court No. 25-7665 presents a particularly practical question: whether § 922(g)(1)’s categorical ban is unconstitutional as applied to a nonviolent defendant who possessed firearms solely for hunting and sporting purposes.
The case is also distributed for the September 28 conference. For people whose goal is to hunt again after a decades-old nonviolent conviction, this is one of the most factually relevant petitions now at the Court.
Why it matters: a decision recognizing the relevance of nonviolent history and lawful sporting purpose could undermine the idea that every felony permanently justifies the same level of firearm disability.
View the Supreme Court docket for Butts v. United States →
4. Perez v. United States: another direct challenge for nonviolent predicate offenses
Supreme Court No. 25-7630 asks whether the federal felon-in-possession statute is unconstitutional as applied to a defendant with nonviolent predicate offenses. The Ninth Circuit has generally taken a broader view of Congress’s authority to disarm felons, making Perez another vehicle for resolving the circuit split.
Like Hembree, Swan, and Butts, Perez is distributed for the September 28 conference.
View the Supreme Court docket for Perez v. United States →
5. Storey and Stewart: attacking § 922(g)(1) through the Commerce Clause too
Storey v. United States, No. 25-7216, is distributed for the September 28 conference and challenges whether Congress can criminalize purely intrastate firearm possession merely because the gun crossed state lines at some point in the past. Stewart v. United States, No. 26-5131, combines that Commerce Clause question with the Second Amendment question whether nonviolent felons may bring as-applied challenges.
Those cases are not as cleanly focused on rehabilitation as Hembree or Swan, but a ruling narrowing the federal government’s Commerce Clause theory could also reduce the reach of § 922(g)(1).
View Storey v. United States →
There are many more petitions in the same cluster
The Court is also being asked similar questions in petitions including Finney, Jackson, Williamson, Cerrillo, and others. The significance is not that every petition will be granted. Most cert petitions are denied. The significance is that the justices now have multiple cases from multiple circuits presenting the same split at the same conference.
The already-decided Hemani case may shape what happens next
In United States v. Hemani, decided June 18, 2026, the Supreme Court rejected the government’s attempt to automatically disarm a regular marijuana user under § 922(g)(3). The Court again required the government to justify firearm restrictions through the Nation’s historical tradition and focused on whether the restricted class can actually be treated as dangerous.
Hemani was not a felon case, but its reasoning is highly relevant. Hembree’s Fifth Circuit decision relied in part on the same dangerousness logic, and the Solicitor General initially asked the Supreme Court to hold Hembree pending Hemani.
Read the Supreme Court’s Hemani opinion →
What a favorable Supreme Court ruling could—and could not—do
A major ruling does not necessarily mean every person with a felony record suddenly regains gun rights. The more realistic possibilities include:
- recognizing that § 922(g)(1) is subject to as-applied challenges;
- requiring the government to prove a historical basis for disarming a person based on the particular type of prior conviction;
- distinguishing dangerous or violent offenders from people with old nonviolent offenses;
- rejecting a rule that every felony, no matter how old or minor, justifies permanent disarmament;
- narrowing the federal government’s Commerce Clause theory in some intrastate-possession cases.
Even a favorable federal constitutional ruling may leave independent state firearm restrictions intact. That is why anyone evaluating restoration should use both the Gun Rights by State guides and the 250 offense-specific guides.
What should someone with an old nonviolent felony do now?
Do not assume a pending Supreme Court petition is legal authorization to possess or buy a firearm. Until the law actually changes and applies to your situation, the existing prohibition remains enforceable.
The useful work now is to identify the exact conviction, whether it was violent or nonviolent, when every part of the sentence ended, what state law says, and whether the current DOJ § 925(c) process offers an administrative path. Start with the Eligibility Review or, where appropriate, the Full Restoration Application.
Frequently asked questions
Not yet as of September 14, 2026. Several major § 922(g)(1) petitions are distributed for the Court’s September 28 conference, when the justices can grant, deny, hold, or relist them.
Hembree and Swan are especially important. Hembree involves simple methamphetamine possession, and the Fifth Circuit already held the federal ban unconstitutional as applied to him. Swan directly asks whether nonviolent felons are entitled to individualized Second Amendment review.
That is possible but not the most likely narrow outcome. Several petitions ask for as-applied review rather than facial invalidation, which could preserve the law for dangerous offenders while opening challenges for some nonviolent offenders.
No. A grant of certiorari only means the Supreme Court will hear the case. Existing federal and state firearm restrictions remain in effect unless and until binding law changes and applies to the individual’s record.
Hemani reinforced that firearm prohibitions must be justified through historical tradition and cannot simply be defended by broad categorical assertions of dangerousness. That reasoning may influence the pending § 922(g)(1) cases.
General information only. This article is not legal advice and is not permission to possess, receive, transport or purchase a firearm. Verify the current law and the legal effect of your actual court orders.
Case review
Want the next question answered for your record?
Send the conviction, jurisdiction, sentence-completion date and goal.
