The Supreme Court declined to revive a felon-in-possession conviction built on simple meth possession, letting a Fifth Circuit Second Amendment win stand for gun owners in three states.

On Monday the high court refused the Justice Department’s petition to review a January appeals ruling that tossed Charles Hembree’s federal gun conviction, the Daily Caller reported.

That refusal leaves in place a Fifth Circuit decision holding that the federal ban on firearm possession by felons cannot be applied to Hembree based solely on a 2018 methamphetamine possession conviction. The ruling covers Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana.

Gun-rights groups framed the cert denial as another limit on how far prosecutors can stretch the long-standing felon gun ban after recent Supreme Court Second Amendment precedent.

Panel said the government never proved its history case

A three-judge Fifth Circuit panel reversed Hembree’s conviction on Jan. 27. Two Trump appointees and one Obama appointee sat on the panel. Circuit Judge Stephen Higginson, the Obama appointee, wrote the opinion.

Higginson said the Justice Department failed the constitutional test courts now apply to gun restrictions.

“The government did not meet its burden to prove that history and tradition support simple possession as a valid felony predicate under § 922(g)(1),”

That statute is the main federal felon-in-possession ban. It makes it a crime for anyone with a prior felony to possess a firearm. The panel treated Hembree’s challenge as an as-applied claim, meaning the ban was unlawful in his specific circumstances, not in every case.

Higginson rejected the government’s effort to fold simple possession into the drug trade or treat the drugs as contraband that automatically justified disarmament.

“We decline to reach so far as to find possession to be part and parcel with the drug trade, and the government’s analogy to possession of contraband has been foreclosed. Accordingly, we are compelled to reverse Hembree’s conviction as unconstitutional as-applied.”

Federal prosecutors had charged Hembree with possessing a firearm after the 2018 meth conviction. The appeals court said that predicate was not enough under the history-and-tradition standard.

DOJ wanted a remand after the Hemani marijuana ruling

The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to send the Hembree case back to the Fifth Circuit after the high court’s decision in Hemani v. United States. That earlier ruling struck down a gun charge tied to Ali Hemani’s status as a regular marijuana user.

DOJ argued the Hemani outcome should force a fresh look at Hembree. Federal public defenders for Hembree countered that Hemani did not undercut the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning. The Supreme Court did not accept a merits opinion. It simply denied review.

The orders list entry was brief and final.

“The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied,”

In plain terms, the court let Hembree proceed without paying filing fees and refused to hear the government’s appeal. The Fifth Circuit decision stands.

High-court refusals to take cases often leave major lower-court holdings in force, a pattern also visible when the Supreme Court rejects emergency election fights and allows existing rules to continue.

As-applied strategy kept the fight narrow

Defense lawyers have increasingly used as-applied challenges rather than facial attacks that would try to wipe out the entire felon gun ban. Zachary Newland, who represented Hemani, explained the approach to the Daily Caller News Foundation in June.

“We made sure that we brought an as-applied challenge rather than a facial challenge, meaning an as-applied challenge is a challenge saying that the law is unlawful as applied to my client versus a facial challenge, which says it’s unlawful in every instance,”

Newland added that the narrower claim shifts the burden.

“So that’s one, you narrow the target there, right? And in some ways, you put it on the government rather than putting it on you.”

That framing mattered in both Hemani and Hembree. Courts were not asked to declare every felon-in-possession prosecution unconstitutional. They were asked whether the government could justify disarming these particular defendants based on the underlying conduct and historical tradition.

Similar dynamics appear when the justices leave a lower-court map order untouched instead of rewriting the whole dispute themselves.

What the denial means on the ground

Because the Supreme Court declined review, the Fifth Circuit’s holding controls in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Prosecutors in those states face a tighter path when the only felony on the books is simple drug possession and they still want a § 922(g)(1) gun conviction.

The Firearms Policy Coalition flagged the cert denial on Oct. 5, noting the Fifth Circuit had already found the felon gun ban unconstitutional as applied to a defendant whose underlying crime was possessing meth.

Hembree’s 2018 methamphetamine possession conviction remains the key predicate the panel rejected as insufficient. The appeals court did not treat every drug-related felony the same way. It drew a line at simple possession and said the government never carried its historical burden.

Court-watchers also track how often the justices step in on enforcement fights, including when the Supreme Court clears the way for contested deportation policies after lower-court blocks.

Another marker after Hemani

Hemani involved marijuana use and a gun charge. Hembree involved meth possession and a felon-in-possession count. Both pushed the same core question: how far can the federal government go in stripping Second Amendment rights for non-violent drug offenses without proving a historical tradition that matches the ban.

DOJ sought Supreme Court intervention in Hembree roughly two months before the Hemani decision landed, then tried to use Hemani as a reason for a remand. The justices declined. The Fifth Circuit’s January opinion therefore remains the law of that circuit.

That outcome reduces the set of felony convictions that automatically erase gun rights for lawful residents in the three states the Fifth Circuit covers. It does not repeal the felon gun ban. It cabins one aggressive application of it.

Emergency applications and follow-on orders remain a steady part of the docket, including earlier fights in which the Trump administration asked the justices to restore a blocked deportation policy after an appeals court intervened.

When a federal appeals court restores firearm rights stripped over simple possession, and the Supreme Court leaves that ruling alone, the message is straightforward: history and tradition still bind the government, and overbroad disarmament does not get a free pass.