Brewer Client NYSPRA Urges Supreme Court to Rein in Vague, Status-Based Federal Gun Ban

January 30, 2026 — The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSPRA) filed a friend-of-the-court brief today urging the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate a federal law that imposes felony gun prohibitions based on ill-defined personal status rather than concrete criminal conduct.

The NYSRPA brief in United States v. Hemani urges the Supreme Court to reject a federal gun ban that imposes felony liability based on vague status labels rather than clearly defined conduct. It argues that the statute fails basic due process requirements, authorizes punishment without proof of wrongdoing, and exceeds constitutional limits on Congress’s power to define crimes.

Hemani is widely viewed as among the most significant Second Amendment matters to reach the Supreme Court in recent years, with nationwide implications for the scope of federal firearm regulations and the constitutional limits of Congress’s power to impose firearm disabilities.

In the case, defendant Ali Danial Hemani was charged under a federal statute that prohibits firearm possession by individuals deemed “unlawful users” of controlled substances, even though he was not alleged to be intoxicated at the time of possession. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the government failed to show any historical tradition of disarming individuals who were not intoxicated at the time they possessed a firearm and therefore held 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) unconstitutional as applied to Hemani. The Solicitor General later asked the Supreme Court to review the decision, which the Court agreed to hear, and its ruling is expected to clarify the scope of permissible firearm regulations under the text-and-history framework established in Bruen.

In its amicus brief, NYSRPA challenges § 922(g)(3), a federal statute that bars firearm possession by individuals deemed “unlawful users” of controlled substances. NYSRPA argues that the statute violates core constitutional protections by attaching criminal penalties to vague and undefined status labels, rather than clearly defined conduct. According to the brief, the law fails to provide fair notice to ordinary citizens and invites arbitrary enforcement by leaving critical terms undefined.

“This case goes to the heart of whether criminal law is governed by clear rules or by after-the-fact judgments about personal status,” said William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and counsel for NYSRPA. “When Congress imposes felony penalties without clearly defining the prescribed conduct, it is the Supreme Court’s responsibility to reaffirm the constitutional limits that protect individual liberty and the rule of law.”

Brewer added, “When an organization with NYSRPA’s history and experience speaks, it is because the constitutional stakes demand clarity from the Court.”

Although NYSRPA is best known for its leadership on Second Amendment issues, the brief emphasizes broader constitutional concerns that extend beyond firearms policy. NYSRPA argues that § 922(g)(3) violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on status-based criminal punishment, and the rule of lenity, which requires ambiguous criminal statutes to be construed in favor of individual liberty.

NYSRPA President Tom King underscored the significance of the case and its broader constitutional implications.

“Hemani presents another ‘constitutional moment,’” King said. “The Supreme Court’s review will determine whether Americans are subjected to felony punishment under unbounded laws, or whether our freedom is protected by clear, enforceable limits on government power. The NYSRPA wants to ensure those principles are forcefully presented to the Court.”

According to the brief, “This case is not about excusing dangerous conduct. It is about whether Congress may impose felony punishment without clearly defining what conduct is prohibited, and without requiring proof of any contemporaneous wrongdoing.”

The amicus brief was filed by Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, whose record of success in constitutional litigation includes its representation of the National Rifle Association of America in the unanimous Supreme Court victory in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, a First Amendment case against former New York financial regulator Maria T. Vullo.

A decision in Hemani could have sweeping consequences for federal criminal law, firearms regulation, and the constitutional limits on status-based prohibitions enforced through the criminal justice system.

Click here to see the brief.

Brewer is joined in representing the NYSRPA by partner William A. Brewer IV and Jed Sexton, both from the firm’s New York office.