Whether a federal statute prohibiting firearm possession by unlawful drug users violates the Second Amendment when applied to a specific individual based on an individualized assessment of dangerousness

No question identified. : 2 1. A federal grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania indicted respondent on three counts of possessing a firearm as an unlawful user of a controlled substance, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g) (3), and three counts of falsification of a firearms purchase form, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(a) (6). See Indictment 1. Respondent moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing (as relevant here) that Section 922(g) (3) violates the Second Amendment. See App., infra, 4a. The district court denied the motion. Respondent pleaded guilty on all counts. See ibid. 2. The Third Circuit vacated and remanded. App., infra, la-48a. The court determined that Section 922(g) (3) is “wellgrounded in history” and is analogous to historical laws restricting the rights of drunkards. Id. at 15a; see id. at 14a-20a. But it then concluded that the government may apply Section 922 (g) (3) to an individual only if that “particular drug user” poses a “risk of danger.” Id. at 22a. It remanded the case so that the district court could make that factual determination in the first instance. See ibid. 3. The Solicitor General has not yet determined whether to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in this case. The United States has filed, and this Court is currently considering, several petitions for writs of certiorari involving as-applied Second Amendment challenges to Section 922(g) (3). See United States v. Hemani, 24-1234 (filed June 2, 2025); United States v. Cooper, No. 3 24-1247 (filed June 5, 2025); United States v. Daniels, No. 241248 (filed June 5, 2025); United States v. Sam, No. 24-1249 (filed June 5, 2025); United States v. Baxter, No. 24-1328 (filed June 27, 2025). The additional time sought in this application would enable the Solicitor General to review this Court’s disposition of those petitions before deciding whether to file a petition in this case. Additional time is also needed, if a petition is authorized, to permit its preparation and printing. Respectfully submitted. D. JOHN SAUER Solicitor General OCTOBER 2025