NEW ORLEANS, LA — In a major development reflecting the ongoing impact of the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which criminalizes firearm possession by felons, is unconstitutional as applied to a Mississippi man whose only felony conviction was for “simple possession of methamphetamine.”
Charles Hembree was indicted in 2022 under § 922(g)(1) after authorities discovered he possessed a firearm. His lone prior felony was a 2018 Mississippi state conviction for meth possession. Hembree moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the law violated his Second Amendment rights under the framework set forth in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The district court denied that motion.
Hembree later pled guilty while reserving the right to appeal the dismissal of his Second Amendment challenge. The Fifth Circuit, applying its recent decision in United States v. Diaz, reversed his conviction on January 27, 2026.
The three-judge panel, led by Judge Stephen A. Higginson, found that the government failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that disarming individuals with only a conviction for simple possession of methamphetamine aligns with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Court emphasized that no Founding-era analogues treated simple drug possession as grounds for permanent disarmament.
The government argued that Hembree’s offense was inherently dangerous and likened it to historic crimes such as mail theft and counterfeiting, which were severely punished in the 18th century. However, the Court rejected this analogy, noting that those crimes involved fraud and theft, not personal drug use.
Citing Diaz and other recent decisions, the panel reiterated that only predicate felonies reflecting clear historical justification for firearm disarmament — such as crimes involving violence, theft, or violations of supervised release — satisfy the requirements under Bruen. Hembree’s conviction for simple possession did not meet that standard.
In a concurring opinion, Judge Don Willett highlighted the importance of the Bill of Rights as a safeguard against federal overreach and reaffirmed that the Constitution’s structure and protections must operate in tandem to protect liberty.
This ruling adds to a growing list of Fifth Circuit decisions narrowing the application of § 922(g)(1) and signals continued judicial scrutiny of federal firearm restrictions in light of Bruen.
This case reaffirms that mere non-violent drug possession, absent distribution or violence, cannot serve as a constitutional basis to permanently strip someone of their Second Amendment rights. It underscores the importance of maintaining clear, historically grounded standards when restricting fundamental rights.
