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.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Taps Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors for Amicus Brief
December 24, 2025 – Bearing Arms reports that Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors represents the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) in its advocacy in support of Ali Danial Hemani in United States v. Hemani. NYSRPA and the Brewer firm intend to submit an amicus brief in support of Hemani, joining the ACLU and others in this landmark case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The case centers on enforcement of the federal ban on gun possession by “unlawful” users of drugs. The Fifth Circuit held the statute unconstitutional in many circumstances, rejecting prohibitions absent active intoxication.The Solicitor General subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court for review, which was granted.
In a statement provided to Bearing Arms, firm partner William A. Brewer III said the amicus brief will “make the case for a straightforward, principled approach to the Constitution – one that protects freedom while ensuring fairness in the law.”
As reported by Bearing Arms, Brewer’s record of success in constitutional litigation includes its representation of the National Rifle Association of America in the unanimous Supreme Court victory in the First Amendment case against former New York financial regulator Maria T. Vullo, National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo.
NYSRPA President Tom King emphasized the significance of the Hemani case and the broader constitutional moment.
“The Hemani case is a defining moment – a reminder that constitutional freedom must never be weakened by vague or overreaching government power,” King said. “Our partnership with Brewer ensures that the Supreme Court will hear a powerful defense of individual liberty.”
Briefs in United States v. Hemani are due before the Court on January 20. Amicus briefs will follow one week later.
ABA Journal Reports on NRA, Brewer Representation
December 17, 2024 – ABA Journal reports that the National Rifle Association (NRA) will reform its governance following a civil lawsuit that originally sought to dissolve the organization.
Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, which had represented the NRA since 2018, said in a statement that the judgment “is tailored to compliance and governance measures in the NRA’s interest—many proposed by the NRA itself and several of which were already underway at the association.”
Judge Joel Cohen approved the judgment on December 11. The reforms include increasing leadership transparency and changing how NRA board elections are conducted.
As reported, the Brewer firm added that efforts to obtain a “corporate death penalty” and court-appointed monitor to oversee the NRA were defeated. “The NRA pays no fines or penalties under today’s judgment. Instead, the judgment entitles the NRA to collect millions of dollars from two former executives found to have breached their duties,” the statement said. “In sum, following over a month of trial proceedings, Justice Joel Cohen denied all invasive relief sought by the government.”
Read more here.
Brewer Firm Congratulates NRA on Historic Victory in NYAG Litigation
December 11, 2024 – Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors commented today on the NRA’s historic resolution of a multi-year legal battle with New York Attorney General Letitia James. Brewer has represented the NRA since 2018, in connection with the NYAG’s efforts to “eliminate the Association” – which today’s judgment favorably resolves.
Alongside a unanimous Supreme Court victory this summer, this final judgment marks another high-profile, historic victory in the firm’s representation of the gun group.
Following a year-long investigation, NYAG James sued to dissolve the Association and seize its assets in August 2020. After the NRA defeated the NYAG’s “corporate death penalty” claim, James sought a court-appointed monitor to oversee the gun group. The court rejected that request this summer. Today, a final judgment was entered that is tailored to compliance and governance measures in the NRA’s interest – many proposed by the NRA itself, and several of which were already underway at the Association.
The NRA pays no fines or penalties under today’s judgment. Instead, the judgment entitles the NRA to collect millions of dollars from two former executives found to have breached their duties. In sum, following over a month of trial proceedings, Justice Joel Cohen denied all invasive relief sought by the government.
“It was a privilege to be part of this historic, multi-year defense of freedom,” says NRA counsel William A. Brewer III. “Board leaders confronted the ultimate challenge and threat. They deserve credit for standing firm to protect the Association, its mission to defend constitutional freedoms, and the rights of millions of members. The goal from day one was that the NRA remain free to chart its course.”
The judgment caps a six-year saga during which the firm defended the NRA against a barrage of other blue-state regulatory actions, sweeping congressional inquiries, and a debanking effort by New York officials that became the subject of a blockbuster Supreme Court decision in June. In that case, NRA v. Vullo, all nine justices backed the Association’s First Amendment claims. The Brewer firm served as lead counsel in the Vullo case, and co-counsel with the ACLU before the Supreme Court.
“When we undertook this representation, we committed to keep the NRA safe and secure,” Brewer says. “The effort involved not only our lawyers but business professionals, investigators, and crisis communications experts. Today’s decision marks the exclamation point on our collective advocacy and vision.”
Joining Brewer in representing the NRA were firm partners Sarah B. Rogers, Svetlana M. Eisenberg, and Noah Peters, and associate Josh Dillon.
New York Times Reports on NRA, Legal Advocacy
December 5, 2024 – The New York Times reports today, in part, about the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) and its “advocacy” in defense of its independence. As many of you know, in August 2020 the New York Attorney General (NYAG) filed a “dissolution lawsuit” against Brewer client the NRA.
Amid questions about the NRA’s legal strategy, firm partner William A. Brewer III noted that Brewer, with the support of NRA leadership, helped the Association successfully “confront a barrage of blue-state regulatory investigations,” including an effort by New York regulators to eliminate the group. The NYAG’s dissolution claims against the NRA were dismissed, and her bid for a court-appointed monitor was rejected by the court earlier this year.
Brewer told The Times:
“My firm handles bet-the-company, life or death advocacy. The NRA called and we helped them confront a barrage of blue-state regulatory investigations, a promised ‘corporate death penalty’ dissolution effort in New York, sweeping Russia-gate congressional inquiries, and a debanking effort condemned by the entire Supreme Court. Today, more than six years later, the NRA still stands – independent and free. We’re proud of that outcome, which we count as a win."
Read more here.
Brewer, Volokh Comment on First Amendment Case
November 26, 2024 – Firm Partner William A. Brewer and First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh posted an update on the NRA’s First Amendment lawsuit against former New York financial regulator Maria T. Vullo. The report appears on REASON, as a segment of Professor Volokh’s blog, “The Volokh Conspiracy.”
In setting the stage for a successful appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the two write, “We were joined by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), as the NRA appealed this ruling to the United States Supreme Court for the NRA. In a rebuke from a unanimous Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor revived the NRA's claims this past June, emphasizing decades of precedent that "[a] government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf." Moreover, the Court said, Vullo's alleged conduct struck at the heart of this prohibition. In light of the Court's guidance on the First Amendment merits of the NRA's allegations, Sotomayor added, the Second Circuit was free to reconsider the issue of qualified immunity, i.e., whether Vullo's alleged violations were such that the NRA should be able to sue her individually for damages.”
Read the report here.
Free Speech Group Supports NRA
August 19, 2024 – Law360 reports on an amicus brief filed by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) in support of Brewer client the National Rifle Association of America (NRA). As reported, “A former New York state official isn't immune from the National Rifle Association’s suit claiming she violated the group's rights by pressuring financial institutions to cut ties with it, a free speech group told the Second Circuit on Monday, citing a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in the dispute.”
The report says that, in an amicus brief filed in support of the NRA, FIRE said granting former New York Department of Financial Services Superintendent Maria T. Vullo qualified immunity “would telegraph just how officials can avoid constitutional limits by slightly modifying or softening their coercive statements.”
In a unanimous decision in May, the U.S. Supreme Court said the NRA plausibly alleged that Vullo violated the group’s First Amendment rights by coercing DFS-regulated banks and insurers into cutting ties with the NRA. The NRA and Vullo filed Supplemental Letter Briefs on July 29, 2024.
To read more, click here.
Washington Post Editorial Board Recognizes Historic Win
June 1, 2024 – The Washington Post editorial board recognized the historic Supreme Court win for Brewer client, the National Rifle Association of America (NRA). The editorial, “The NRA Deserved its First Amendment Win at the Supreme Court,” observes, “…the court’s 9-0 ruling in National Rifle Association v. Vullo was a positive development in two ways: It showed that the fractious justices can still unite around certain basic constitutional principles; and the constitutional principle they rallied behind in this case was the sacred one of free speech.” The unanimous ruling in favor of the NRA was on May 30, 2024.
In speaking of a 2018 “blacklisting campaign” against the NRA undertaken by former New York state regulator Maria T. Vullo, the Post writes, “To be sure, state officials such as Ms. Vullo have every right to punish actual legal infractions by any companies that do business with NRA members, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the court, explained. And they have every right to speak out against gun violence and the NRA. What they cannot do, however, ‘is use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,’ Justice Sotomayor wrote. ‘At the heart of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause is the recognition that viewpoint discrimination is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.’”
The NRA was represented by the Brewer firm, the ACLU, and First Amendment Scholar Eugene Volokh.
Read the editorial here.