ALERT 2020 — Legal Education Report (March 9 – 20, 2026)

United States v. Hemani — Oral Argument Suggests Trouble for Federal Gun Ban on Marijuana Users

The Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in United States v. Hemani, a major Second Amendment case involving 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal law that bars gun possession by unlawful users of controlled substances.

Several Justices appeared skeptical that the government had strong historical support for applying this law broadly to marijuana users. The questioning suggested concern that the statute may sweep too broadly and may not clearly identify who is dangerous enough to lose a constitutional right.

Why this matters: If the Court rules for Hemani, the decision could weaken or narrow prosecutions under § 922(g)(3), especially for people accused only of regular marijuana use rather than active intoxication or proven dangerousness. That could affect pending cases and may create new post-conviction arguments in older gun cases.

8th Circuit Win: Sentence Vacated Because Judge Relied on Disputed, Unproven Gun Allegations

United States v. Willis

The Eighth Circuit vacated a 240-month sentence because the district court relied on disputed allegations in the PSR that were never proven at sentencing. Willis objected to claims that he possessed four firearms found in an Audi in a detached garage and denied knowing about them. The government offered no evidence at sentencing to prove those facts, yet the district judge still treated the guns as aggravating factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Why this matters: Once a defendant objects to factual allegations in the PSR, the court cannot rely on those allegations unless the government proves them with evidence. Objected-to PSR facts are not evidence.

10th Circuit Win: Wrong Immigration Advice About a Guilty Plea Can Violate the Sixth Amendment

United States v. Aguayo-Montes

The Tenth Circuit reversed the denial of a § 2255 motion because defense counsel gave constitutionally deficient advice about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea. Aguayo-Montes, a longtime DACA recipient, was told he “may” be deported and did not need to worry about immigration consequences until later.

The court held that this advice violated Padilla v. Kentucky because the immigration consequences were truly clear: counsel should have warned him that deportation was automatic, presumptively mandatory, or practically inevitable. The court also found the advice affirmatively misleading because it discouraged an informed plea decision.

Why this matters: If a noncitizen prisoner was told only that deportation “may” happen when the real consequence was nearly certain removal, that can support relief under § 2255.

10th Circuit Win: Firearm Conviction Reversed After Illegal Vehicle Search

United States v. Williams

The Tenth Circuit ruled that police violated the Fourth Amendment when they searched a vehicle after the driver had already been arrested, handcuffed, and removed from the scene. Officers argued they could search because the driver was believed to be dangerous and the passenger was his girlfriend.

The court rejected that “criminality-by-association” theory and held that police must point to specific facts showing the passenger herself was armed and dangerous. Because the firearm and ammunition were found during an unconstitutional search, the conviction was reversed.

Why this matters: Police cannot justify a search just because someone is riding with a person suspected of criminal activity. If key evidence came from a questionable vehicle search, there may be a serious suppression issue worth reviewing.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission had already published its proposed 2026 amendments, and the final adopted amendments were due to be submitted to Congress by May 1, 2026. Two proposals were especially worth watching: possible expansion of Zones B and C of the Sentencing Table, and changes involving the career-offender guideline, including the “crime of violence” and “controlled substance offense” definitions.

The Commission also asked whether any adopted changes should be made retroactive.

Why this matters: If meaningful changes are adopted, they may affect future sentencings and could eventually help some already-sentenced prisoners if retroactivity is approved.