USA v. Hembree
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Reversed
The Fifth Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to Charles Hembree, whose sole prior felony was simple possession of methamphetamine. Applying its felony-by-felony historical-analogue methodology after Bruen and its own decisions in Diaz and Kimble, the court found the government failed to show a historical tradition of permanently disarming persons convicted only of drug-possession felonies and therefore reversed Hembree’s conviction.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Proper constitutional framework for evaluating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) after NYSRPA v. Bruen—whether the statute is categorically valid for all felons or subject to as-applied challenges and, if so, what methodology governs those challenges.
Circuit Positions
Categorical approach—§ 922(g)(1) constitutional for all felons; no as-applied Bruen analysis required.
Individualized dangerousness test—permit as-applied challenges and require case-specific inquiry into defendant’s history.
Predicate-specific historical-analogue test—permit as-applied challenges but limit inquiry to the historical fit of the particular felony, not wider dangerousness.
Conflict Summary
Six circuits (2d, 4th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th) treat § 922(g)(1) as categorically constitutional for every felon and reject Bruen-based as-applied challenges. The 3d and 6th Circuits permit as-applied challenges but require district courts to conduct individualized dangerousness assessments that look at the defendant’s entire history. The 5th Circuit, by contrast, allows as-applied challenges but uses a predicate-specific, felony-by-felony historical-analogue test that focuses only on the statutory elements of the prior felony and expressly rejects individualized dangerousness inquiries.