USA v. Erik Harris
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
Affirmed in Part
Harris, a frequent marijuana user, was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) for possessing three handguns and under § 922(a)(6) for lying about his drug use on firearms-purchase forms. The Third Circuit held that, in light of historical analogues disarming dangerous drunks and the mentally ill, § 922(g)(3) can constitutionally disarm illegal drug users who are found to pose a concrete risk of violence, but remanded because the record lacked factual findings on whether Harris actually presents such a danger. It affirmed his false-statement convictions and rejected his vagueness challenge, but vacated the § 922(g)(3) counts and remanded for further fact-finding.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) may constitutionally bar habitual marijuana users from possessing firearms after N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen.
Circuit Positions
§ 922(g)(3) is constitutional when applied to drug users who, after individualized fact-finding, are found to pose a credible physical danger while armed.
§ 922(g)(3) is unconstitutional as applied to ordinary marijuana users because the Government failed to identify a sufficiently close historical analogue.
Conflict Summary
The Third Circuit upholds § 922(g)(3) in principle—allowing disarmament of drug users only when an individualized finding shows they are likely to endanger others if armed—whereas the Fifth Circuit has held the provision unconstitutional as applied to an ordinary, non-violent marijuana user, concluding that history provides no analogue for such a ban.