John Kloehr Posted August 13, 2025 Posted August 13, 2025 Gators Guns v Washington State. Magazine bans. Petition for SCOTUS cert filed: https://irp.cdn-website.com/6a12d959/files/uploaded/gators-+Petition.pdf No SCOTUS case page yet. 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted August 15, 2025 Posted August 15, 2025 Duncan v Bonta Petition for cert filed. Scotus page not yet updated. https://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1512097/2025-duncan-cert-petition.pdf Have not read it yet. This is the California magazine ban case. Petition for cert backed by CRPA and the NRA. Press release: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20250815/supreme-court-review-sought-in-nra-backed-challenge-to-california-s-magazine-ban#:~:text=Today%2C a Petition for Certiorari,of holding over 10 rounds. SCOTUS "opening" conference is September 10th, the next scheduled conference is October 10th. 3 Quote
John Kloehr Posted August 20, 2025 Posted August 20, 2025 NRA v Glass. Challenge to 18-20 year old ban on purchase of firearms. The state of Florida responds to the petition for certiorari: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1185/370266/20250820150454276_Glass Response Brief_File Ready.pdf " Though Florida defended the constitutionality of its law below, Florida’s Attorney General announced shortly after taking office that, in his view as the State’s chief legal officer, the law violates the Second Amendment.1 Based on that determination, the Commissioner of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement has likewise concluded that the law is unconstitutional. ... The Court should therefore take this opportunity to declare Florida’s purchase ban invalid to the extent it is applied against legal adults. " 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted August 25, 2025 Posted August 25, 2025 Robinson v United States. SBR case, plaintiff was convicted for possession without tax stamps. Plaintiff is appealing conviction. Original filing was prior to passage of OBBB. Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-5150.html Government waived right to respond unless requested. SAF has filed an Amicus Brief. SCOTUS has distributed petition for conference scheduled on September 29th. SCOTUS has requested DOJ respond by September 19th. 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted August 25, 2025 Posted August 25, 2025 On 8/15/2025 at 3:31 PM, John Kloehr said: Duncan v Bonta Petition for cert filed. Scotus page not yet updated. https://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1512097/2025-duncan-cert-petition.pdf Have not read it yet. This is the California magazine ban case. Petition for cert backed by CRPA and the NRA. Press release: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20250815/supreme-court-review-sought-in-nra-backed-challenge-to-california-s-magazine-ban#:~:text=Today%2C a Petition for Certiorari,of holding over 10 rounds. SCOTUS "opening" conference is September 10th, the next scheduled conference is October 10th. California to respond by October 20. Not scheduled for conference at this time. Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-198.html 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted August 25, 2025 Posted August 25, 2025 On 6/8/2025 at 12:21 PM, John Kloehr said: No case number or tracking page at this time. New appeal (Rush v United States) out of the 7th district: https://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1512068/rush-v-us-cert-petition.pdf " Question Presented: Whether the Second Amendment secures the right to possess unregistered short-barreled rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes. " Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1259.html US government waived right to respond. SCOTUS has distributed petition for conference scheduled on September 29th. SCOTUS has requested DOJ respond by September 2nd. In summary, looking like SCOTUS will take on at least discussing the NFA tax questions raised by the OBBB, no signals at this time on magazine or sporting rifle bans. 3 Quote
John Kloehr Posted August 27, 2025 Posted August 27, 2025 (edited) Viramontes v Cook County. AR-15 ban. Petition for certiorari: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6277/attachments/original/1756312820/2025.08.27_Cert_Petition.pdf?1756312820 Kavanaugh noted this case in his discussion when not granting cert in Snope v Brown. Organizational litigants include FPC and SAF. No SCOTUS case page found at this time. FPC page: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/viramontes Edited August 27, 2025 by John Kloehr 1 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted August 30, 2025 Posted August 30, 2025 On 8/13/2025 at 12:24 PM, John Kloehr said: SAF/FPC file response brief in Paris V SAF. Case is originally from Pennsylvania. Question presented is if young adults can carry during a declared emergency. Circuit split on 2A rights for 18-20 year olds is 3-3. SCOTUS case page: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1329.html State request for cert: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1329/363927/20250626105144428_Paris v. SAF Cert Petition v.FINAL.pdf SAF/FPC response: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1329/369550/20250813111716177_24-1329 Brief for the Respondents.pdf Paris (Pennsylvania) response brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1329/370898/20250827134555336_Paris v. SAF Cert Reply Brief v.FINAL.pdf Also NAGR file amicus back on August 13th. Scheduled for conference 9/29 (which answers an earlier question, cases may be considered before the first October conference. See links to docs at the case page in the quoted text above. Interesting to see both parties requesting cert, usually one party wants cert and the other wants the existing ruling to stand without review. Since Paris lost at the circuit level and has only this last shot at the supremes (and filed for cert), their action is expected. For FPC who previously won, the normal expected action is to claim the lower circuit got it right and no further review is required. But FPC has other suits at much earlier stages addressing 18-20 year old 2A rights. A big win here (18 year olds are adults with full 2A rights) on a very comparatively small question (concealed carry during a declared emergency) potentially ends all of them. Quote
John Kloehr Posted August 31, 2025 Posted August 31, 2025 Vincent v Bondi: Non-violent felon possession ban. Case page: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1155.html Petition (from May 8th, did not catch it then): https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1155/358365/20250508130618964_Vincent Cert Petition - FINAL.pdf DOJ response (August 11th): https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1155/369383/20250811150023889_24-1155VincentOpp.pdf Petitioner further responded on the 19th. Not scheduled for conference at this time. 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted September 2, 2025 Posted September 2, 2025 Actually not every case but a lot of them: 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted September 2, 2025 Posted September 2, 2025 From the link referenced in the above video: https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2025/08/scotus-gun-watch-week-of-8-25-25 36 cases are on the September 29th conference schedule. Any orders will be posted a couple days later. I expect many will get denied on the first go-around, particularly felon-in-possession and drug conviction appeals. One reason the felon cases will likely be turned down is the recent renewed funding of the rights restoration program. 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted September 12, 2025 Posted September 12, 2025 Duncan v Bonta. SAF files amicus brief: https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Duncan-amicus-brief-9.12.25.pdf " ARGUMENT ........................................................ 6 Magazines Are “Arms” Under the Plain Text of the Second Amendment................ 6 This Court Should Grant Certiorari to Confirm That Courts Must Not Turn to Higher Levels of Generality When Closer Analogues Are Available ............... 11 The Ninth Circuit’s Mistreatment of the Second Amendment is Exceptional and Independently Warrants Certiorari ......... 17 " 3 Quote
John Kloehr Posted September 19, 2025 Posted September 19, 2025 (edited) Gators Guns, magazine ban. States filing Amicus in favor of certiorari and reversal: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-153/374005/20250908140441306_25-153 Amici Brief.pdf Is your state listed? Tennessee is. " The States of Montana, Idaho, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming, and the Arizona Legislature submit this amicus brief to safeguard citizens’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms against unnecessary intrusions. That right includes the right to possess and use essential components of modern arms like plus-ten magazines. Amici urge this Court to grant certiorari and reverse. " Edited September 24, 2025 by John Kloehr Otto dammit 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted September 21, 2025 Posted September 21, 2025 (edited) Please note the "friends" list on this Amicus Brief filed in Duncan v Bonta against so-called high capacity magazine bans: BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE NATIONAL AFRICAN AMERICAN GUN ASSOC., INC., ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN GUN OWNERS ASSOC., CHRIS CHENG, DC PROJECT FOUNDATION, INC., OPERATION BLAZING SWORD, INC., GABRIELA FRANCO, AND LIBERAL GUN CLUB IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-198/374892/20250917124130316_250919 AC Brief for efiling.pdf Edited September 21, 2025 by John Kloehr 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted September 23, 2025 Posted September 23, 2025 Viramontes v Cook County. AR-15 ban. There was no way this case would have been in the September 29th conference as that is the date a response was due. Cook county requested, and as of yesterday was approved, to have until October 29th to respond. Moving on to what is in the 30 2A cases scheduled for conference on the 29th (assuming I counted right and nothing changes): 2 deal with evidentiary rules for unlicensed carry in Massachusetts 2 deal with drug use 1 is in regard to Hawaii making private places open to the public (stores) default-deny unless posted to allow carry 25 are aspects of felon in possession I expect the bulk of the felon in possession cases to be denied cert. I can hope for at least a short opinion citing the newly instituted funding and making available the legislated process for restoring rights as reason for denial. At least a few of the petitions argue this re-instated process is itself an infringement. Other than noting I am on the fence on felon in possession for multiple reasons and see legitimate arguments on both sides, I won't list them unless there is a real desire for discussion. Conference results will get posted in the first few days of October. 4 Quote
John Kloehr Posted September 24, 2025 Posted September 24, 2025 (edited) Duncan v Bonta. Magazine ban. 27 states file Amicus Brief in favor of plaintiffs: https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/MTAG/2025/09/18/file_attachments/3393169/Virginia Duncan, ET AL. v. Rob Bonta Brief.pdf " Reasons for Granting the Writ.................................... 3 I. Lower courts in jurisdictions that tend to restrict Second Amendment rights are defying this Court’s precedents. ..................................... 3 A. Lower courts are misapplying the “common use” test. ........................................................ 5 B. The so-called “nuanced approach” gives lower courts an excuse to make loose historical analogies. .................................... 10 II. The decision below badly erred. ...................... 14 A. Magazines are protected by the Second Amendment. ................................................ 14 B. California bans magazines typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. ..................................................... 17 C. The plus-ten magazine ban does not align with this Nation’s tradition of firearm regulation. ................................................... 22 " Edited September 24, 2025 by John Kloehr Add URL 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted October 3, 2025 Posted October 3, 2025 Orders from the "long conference" published. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100325zr_q8l1.pdf Wolford v Lopez, Hawaii default gun free zones. The court granted cert limited to question #1 in the complaint: " 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the Second Circuit, that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier? " And that was it as far as cases affecting the 2nd. A very short order list. Maybe more orders will issue Monday, otherwise the rest of the long list will get rescheduled. 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted October 3, 2025 Posted October 3, 2025 In a bit of followup, the short list of orders today were "miscellaneous" orders from the so-called long conference. The full list of orders from the long conference is expected Monday mid-morning. I will need a little time to go through them before posting a summary here. Visit again then. 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted October 6, 2025 Posted October 6, 2025 (edited) Other than Wolford (above), the long conference did not have any grants in firearms cases, and every firearms-related case on the docket was denied. I'll look later (a few days?) to see what might be in the next round. Orders: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100625zor_5368.pdf Cert denials in three areas: State's Rights Missouri v united States Missouri passed a law prohibiting any state resource be used to enforce any unconstitutional federal firearms laws. The state did not cite any particular law it held to be unconstitutional. The law was struck down, not for what the law said, but the stated reason for the law. Massachusetts Evidence Rules Crowder v Massachusetts Zemene v Massachusetts The two plaintiffs were charged under Massachusetts law for carrying publicly. It is a defense under the law to show possession of a permit. Prior to Bruen, there was no clear statement that carry is a (regulate-able) right. During trial, the state did not show evidence to prove they did not have permits, just evidence they were carrying in public (conduct). The claim in the pleadings is the state must prove the crime when it comes to constitutional conduct rather than moving that burden to defendants to prove innocence. Does sound reasonable, but still, why not show the permit and get the case dismissed? Maybe they did not have permits to show! I think the state is now taking that additional step, this was an attempt to get earlier convictions overturned. Felon in possession (every case presented for consideration): Ford v United States Sam v United States Alvarez v United States Judd v United States Whitehead v United States Thomas v United States Sutherland v United States Bradley v United States Jalomo v United States Rollerson v United States Matlock v United States Bever v United States Johnson v United States Bacon v United States Quiroz v United States Garcia v United States Patino v United States Mason v United States York v United States Martinez v United States Freeman v United States Underwood v United States Quailes v United States Wheeler v United States Smith v United States Clark v United States These cases ranged from facial to as-applied challenges, process challenges, pre-trial indictment, post-sentence supervised release, in the home versus full rights, and some other reasons. Edited October 6, 2025 by John Kloehr Make sections bold Quote
Eyesa Horg Posted October 6, 2025 Posted October 6, 2025 Bet the framers thought "shall not be infringed" would pretty much cover it. But nope! 🤬 1 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted October 8, 2025 Posted October 8, 2025 (edited) Four 2A cases on the docket for Friday, orders on Monday. All four cases challenge firearms prohibition for marijuana use. US v Sam US v Daniels US v Cooper US v Hemani Rahimi (and others via dicta) did review there being a tradition of disarming citizens while intoxicated, but not of generally doing so for potential intoxication; arms were returned upon regaining sobriety. There is also no tradition of disarming for prescription drug use. Complicating this is the current Federal law legislatively classifying marijuana as a drug with no medical value, state laws notwithstanding. Have not dug into the details, my prediction is denial of cert if only because there are too many bigger questions requiring attention. Also consider the conservative court members may not be sympathetic to "stoners," and liberal justices are not sympathetic to firearms owners. I have not dug into the details of any of these cases to provide a more informed opinion. Should cert be granted, I will do so. With all due respect to any "stoners" here, later conferences will examine other cases with questions more relevant to this community. Edited October 8, 2025 by John Kloehr Minor adjustments 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted October 14, 2025 Posted October 14, 2025 On 10/8/2025 at 10:50 AM, John Kloehr said: Four 2A cases on the docket for Friday, orders on Monday. All four cases challenge firearms prohibition for marijuana use. US v Sam US v Daniels US v Cooper US v Hemani None of these cases were either granted or denied, so presume they will get scheduled again in the future. Orders came out today due to yesterday being a holiday. Quote
John Kloehr Posted October 14, 2025 Posted October 14, 2025 1 hour ago, John Kloehr said: None of these cases were either granted or denied, so presume they will get scheduled again in the future. Orders came out today due to yesterday being a holiday. Correction, I missed US v Baxter, cert denied. The government filed the initial petition but argued for holding the case until Hemani is decided as it is "a better vehicle" for the question. A strange one, a request to grant cert but not to hear the case. Baxter himself requested denial of cert as it is not complete to final disposition. Baxter reserves his right of appeal at some later date. Also now adding Harris v US to this group of cases (drug users), government response due 10/30/2025. This case might be a guide for when they all return to conference. 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted October 15, 2025 Posted October 15, 2025 (edited) Current conference and related schedule: Drugs: 24-1249 US v Sam 10/17/25 24-1248 US v Daniels 10/17/25 24-1247 US v Cooper 10/17/25 24-1234 US v Hemani 10/17/25 25-372 Harris v US Government response due 10/30/25 Felon in Possession: 24-7508 Medrano v US 11/7/25 7(?) other cases may join Medrano, they are pending responses. Edited October 15, 2025 by John Kloehr Quote
Texas Joker Posted October 16, 2025 Posted October 16, 2025 There is historical precedent for ex cons in possession prior to '64. Curious to see how that shakes out. Quote
John Kloehr Posted October 20, 2025 Posted October 20, 2025 (edited) Mixed bag in the orders for the drug cases: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/102025zor_19m2.pdf 24-1234 US v Hemani Cert granted 24-1249 US v Sam No decision 24-1248 US v Daniels No decision 24-1247 US v Cooper Motion to proceed in pauperis granted (to respondent), cert denied (to government) Cooper is another case where the government requested cert, but to hold it pending Hemani. Seems Scotus did not wish to do so here any more than with Baxter (above). All of these cases share common elements, the US is looking to overturn rulings finding the parties succeeded in as-applied challenges to the drug user in possession law. Sam and Daniels also have the government asking for cert but to hold pending Hemani. Other commonalities appear to be underlying circumstances including allegations of other criminal activity, habitual drug use including within the prior days, potential ISIS links (Hemani), allegations of dealing drugs, possession of other drugs besides marijuana. and such. However, another commonality seems to be the only actual charge brought against any of them is possession of firearms and marijuana. None of the other criminal acts were charged and no party was convicted of any other charge. Now a break from conferences for a few weeks, next scheduled conference is November 7th. Edited October 20, 2025 by John Kloehr 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted October 28, 2025 Posted October 28, 2025 (edited) Case v Montana. Technically a 4th Amendment case, but significant to the 2nd. It was argued on October 15th. Girlfriend calls police, her boyfriend (maybe ex?) might be suicidal. Turns out the guy has a history of problems, possibly related to his military service. And the girlfriend says he might have a gun. The police "know" him and his history, they gather, they spend over 40 minutes figuring things out before forcibly entering his residence. They find a firearm. He is charged with possession of the firearm. He is ultimately convicted but objects (appeals) as the discovery of the firearm is fruit of the poisoned tree. No evidence of any crime, and how could it be a matter of exigent circumstances considering how long it took for the police to make forcible entry? Simplifying it a bit, but a 4A case based on the 2nd because firearms was at the core of what went down. Question presented: Issue: Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause. Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-624.html Expect a decision next summer. Edited October 28, 2025 by John Kloehr 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted October 31, 2025 Posted October 31, 2025 New filing for cert. Schoenthal v Raoul. Illinois carry ban on public transit. https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Schoenthal-cert-petition.pdf SAF is asking the court to consider this case along with Wolford, to better outline where restrictions are constitutional. The 7th circuit found "vulnerable populations" a justification for the restriction. My favorite quote in the petition: "Indeed, given that the relevant type of “danger” to be concerned about here is armed attack (or an attacker bent on violence with a size and strength advantage), it is hard to know what a “vulnerable population” could be except a disarmed one." 3 Quote
John Kloehr Posted November 4, 2025 Posted November 4, 2025 (edited) Lots of cases in the future, will only focus on those scheduled for conference on the 7th. Some are already scheduled for the 14th, will post those next week. There are at least 30 felon in possession cases filed, only a few will be considered Friday. No cases addressing AWB or LCM bans scheduled at this time. No scheduling for drug cases either in this conference. One interesting case at the end of this list. 25-5802 Phonthalangsy v US Felon in possession 25-5772 Flores v US Felon in possession 25-5758 Moore v US Non-violent felon in possession 25-5748 Lee v US Felon in possession 25-5722 Wise v US Felon in possession 25-5721 Robinson v US Felon in possession 25-5717 Acosta v US Felon in possession 25-5657 Redd v US Felon in possession 24-8071 DeWilde v Bondi Does the Second protect owning M-16 rifles Conference is Friday, orders published the following Monday. Of the Felon cases, I give only a slight chance to Moore balanced against the pending restoration process which is now in rule-making. Absent the developing restoration process, this case would likely have a greater chance under an as-applied challenge. I have not looked closely at DeWilde, will do so if it either gets cert (would be a surprise considering other coming cases) or gets kicked forward (because of other coming cases). Again without looking, it would be good to have a SCOTUS statement that M-16s are arms (simplify the threshold question) and any restrictions must come from history and tradition. I can see this getting GVRed later based on (hopefully) cert for AWB and/or LCM cases Edited November 5, 2025 by John Kloehr 4 Quote
John Kloehr Posted November 10, 2025 Posted November 10, 2025 On 11/4/2025 at 6:00 PM, John Kloehr said: Lots of cases in the future, will only focus on those scheduled for conference on the 7th. Some are already scheduled for the 14th, will post those next week. There are at least 30 felon in possession cases filed, only a few will be considered Friday. No cases addressing AWB or LCM bans scheduled at this time. No scheduling for drug cases either in this conference. One interesting case at the end of this list. 25-5802 Phonthalangsy v US Felon in possession 25-5772 Flores v US Felon in possession 25-5758 Moore v US Non-violent felon in possession 25-5748 Lee v US Felon in possession 25-5722 Wise v US Felon in possession 25-5721 Robinson v US Felon in possession 25-5717 Acosta v US Felon in possession 25-5657 Redd v US Felon in possession 24-8071 DeWilde v Bondi Does the Second protect owning M-16 rifles Conference is Friday, orders published the following Monday. Of the Felon cases, I give only a slight chance to Moore balanced against the pending restoration process which is now in rule-making. Absent the developing restoration process, this case would likely have a greater chance under an as-applied challenge. I have not looked closely at DeWilde, will do so if it either gets cert (would be a surprise considering other coming cases) or gets kicked forward (because of other coming cases). Again without looking, it would be good to have a SCOTUS statement that M-16s are arms (simplify the threshold question) and any restrictions must come from history and tradition. I can see this getting GVRed later based on (hopefully) cert for AWB and/or LCM cases No decision on: 25-5748 Lee v US Felon in possession 24-8071 DeWilde v Bondi Does the Second protect owning M-16 rifles All others denied certiorari. Will post the next batch within a few days for Friday's conference. Rinse and repeat for the following week which looks to have something interesting. 3 Quote
John Kloehr Posted November 11, 2025 Posted November 11, 2025 23 hours ago, John Kloehr said: No decision on: 24-8071 DeWilde v Bondi Does the Second protect owning M-16 rifles Correction. This was denied cert as case number 25-296. 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted November 11, 2025 Posted November 11, 2025 For conference Friday, 11/14/2025 (orders the following Monday): 25-184 Law v US If as-applied challenges are allowed under the 2nd to Felon in possession prohibition 25-356 Mancuso v New York Felon in possession 25-5331 Farris v US Felon in possession 25-5337 Sullivan v US Felon in possession 25-5338 Guiden v US Felon in possession 25-5347 Lusk v US Felon in possession 25-5382 Osborne v US Felon in possession 25-5828 Barrow v US Felon in possession 25-5820 Jones v US Non-violent felon in possession 25-5825 Thomas v US Felon in possession 25-5867 Viha v US Dealing firearms without a license 24-1185 NRA v Glass 18 to 20 year old firearms purchase 24-1329 Lara v Paris 18 to 20 year old firearms purchase 25-24 McCoy v ATF 18 to 20 year old handgun purchase 25-132 WVCDL v ATF 18 to 20 year old handgun purchase I'll mostly be watching the last 4, the rest will likely be denied cert. 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted November 17, 2025 Posted November 17, 2025 Orders released: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/111725zor_f2bh.pdf 7 of the 10 Felon in Possession cases denied cert. No action on the remaining 3: 25-356 Mancuso v New York Felon in possession 25-5337 Sullivan v US Felon in possession 25-5382 Osborne v US Felon in possession Dealing firearms without a license case denied cert. No action on any of the four 18-20 cases. 24-1185 NRA v Glass 18 to 20 year old firearms purchase 24-1329 Lara v Paris 18 to 20 year old firearms purchase 25-24 McCoy v ATF 18 to 20 year old handgun purchase 25-132 WVCDL v ATF 18 to 20 year old handgun purchase Back in a couple days with the next batch for the Friday conference. That looks to have some interesting cases but scheduling can change, giving it a day or two to stabilize. 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted November 18, 2025 Posted November 18, 2025 Correction to yesterday, Sullivan was also denied cert. 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted November 19, 2025 Posted November 19, 2025 (edited) For conference Friday, 11/21/2025 (orders the following Monday), Most likely to be denied cert first: 24-1155 Vincent v Bondi Non-violent Felon in Possession 24-7400 Mayfield v US Felon in Possession 24-7508 Medrano v US Felon in Possession 25-356 Mancuso v New York Firearm Prohibition for any crime, but still Non-violent Felony 25-425 Duarte v US Non-violent Felon in Possession 25-5009 Willis v US Non-violent Felon in Possession 25-5220 Howard v US Felon in Possession (Drug Trafficking) 25-5269 Marshall v US Felon in Possession 25-5327 Reese v US Felon in Possession 25-5358 Compton v US Felon in Possession 25-5382 Osborne v US Felon in Possession 25-5388 Cantu v US Felon in Possession 25-5417 Mitchell v US Felon in Possession 25-5421 Hernandez v US Non-violent Felon in Possession 25-5424 Kearney v US Felon in Possession 25-5433 Terry v US Felon in Possession 25-5434 Thompson v US Felon in Possession 25 5437 Fowler v US Felon in Possession 25-5438 Finney Felon in Possession 25-5439 Greene v US Felon in Possession 25-5441 Perry v US Felon in Possession 25-5443 Crews v US Felon in Possession 25-5607 Gilbert v US Non-violent Felon in Possession *25-5614 Coleman v US Felon in Possession *25-5624 Brown v US Felon in Possession 25-5627 Cole v US Felon in Possession 25-5655 Allen v US Felon in Possession 25-5658 Royal v US Felon in Possession 25-5667 Town v US Felon in Possession *25-5668 Coleman v US Felon in Possession 25-5678 Shoffner v US Felon in Possession *25-5707 Robinson v US Felon in Possession 25-5708 Ketner v US Non-violent Felon in Possession *25-5731 Brown v US Non-violent Felon in Possession 25-5747 Kimble v US Felon in Possession 25-5748 Lee v US Felon in Possession 25-5850 Staley v US Non-violent Felon in Possession *25-5903 Robinson v US Felon in Possession 25-5909 Contreras v US Felon in Possession 25-5916 Espinal v US Felon in Possession 25-5925 Jenkins v US Felon in Possession Long list... More of these coming, some already scheduled for a later conference. I present these three separately as they are a bit more interesting: 25-5415 Williams v US Felon in Possession, but predicate felony (statute) declared unconstitutional 25-5636 Chafin v US Non-violent Felon in Possession, Predicate Offenses No Longer Felonies 25-5656 Sternquist v US Felon in Possession, but actually a challenge to ATF definition of "silencer" Here are a couple more standalone cases: 25-5961 Gardner v Maryland Prohibition of carry by interstate traveler (Full Faith and Credit Clause) 25-469 Carbajal-Flores v US Illegal Alien in Possession Gardner could have legs, is a carry permit issued by one state good in all others? Or in a state which does not issue non-resident permits? A ban case is coming up in the near future, but I'm sticking with one week (one conference) at a time. On edit: The case numbers preceded with a "*" have the same name as another but different case numbers. I did not look to see if they are two different claims by the same person or un-related cases. I'll look closer later if there is anything other than denial of cert. Edited November 19, 2025 by John Kloehr 1 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.