SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The Constitution’s prohibition of vague laws protects the separation of powers by ensuring that Congress, rather than police officers, prosecutors, or judges, determines what conduct is criminal. And it protects individuals from unwittingly becoming subject to prosecution by requiring a criminal law to be sufficiently definite to put ordinary people on notice of what the law prohibits. The statute at issue in this case, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), violates this precept by prohibiting any “unlawful user” of a controlled substance from possessing a firearm without defining the set of unlawful users or providing any guidance whatsoever as to whom that set includes. The Eighth Circuit gave the statute a liberal construction, sweeping in anyone whose use of a controlled substance “has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct” at the time of otherwise-lawful firearm possession.

The result is that even those who use cannabis on a single occasion under the imprimatur of state law, or who take a friend’s prescription medicine, for instance, are plausibly at risk of imprisonment for up to fifteen years for possessing a firearm in an otherwise lawful manner. In this manner, the statute serves principally as a criminalization of drug use rather than a firearm regulation. This statute potentially implicates tens of millions of Americans, and it fails to provide them fair notice of the consequences of their consumption of cannabis or another controlled substance.

Moreover, the Eighth Circuit’s interpretation of the statute provides no limiting principle to cure its vagueness, increasing the extent to which police officers, prosecutors, and judges will selectively decide how and when the statute applies to a one-time or occasional consumer of a controlled substance. This in turn furthers an inequitable, selective criminalization of certain categories of drug use. This Court should grant certiorari.

Summary of Argument

The Constitution requires laws to be clear and specific. This principle upholds the separation of powers, ensuring that elected lawmakers, rather than law enforcement or judges, define what actions are criminal. It also protects individuals by requiring criminal laws to be clear enough so ordinary people understand what is prohibited. The federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) violates this rule. It bans firearm possession by an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance but offers no definition or guidance on who falls into this category. A lower court (the Eighth Circuit) interpreted this law broadly, including anyone whose drug use was recent enough to suggest ongoing involvement at the time of otherwise legal firearm possession.

This interpretation places individuals at risk of up to fifteen years in prison for possessing a firearm, even if their drug use was a single occasion (such as cannabis use permitted by state law) or involved a friend's prescription medicine. The statute, in effect, criminalizes drug use rather than regulating firearms. It potentially affects millions of Americans and fails to provide them adequate notice about the legal consequences of using cannabis or other controlled substances.

Moreover, the Eighth Circuit's broad reading of the law does not resolve its vagueness. This increases the potential for police officers, prosecutors, and judges to apply the statute inconsistently to those who use controlled substances occasionally or only once. Such a situation encourages unequal and selective criminalization of certain types of drug use. A review by the Supreme Court is therefore appropriate.

Summary of Argument

The Constitution prevents laws from being unclear. This protection ensures that Congress, not police, prosecutors, or judges, decides what actions are considered criminal. It also protects individuals from being charged with a crime without knowing they broke the law, requiring criminal laws to be clear about what is prohibited. The law in question, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), goes against this rule. It forbids an "unlawful user" of a controlled substance from having a firearm, but it does not define who an "unlawful user" is or provide any guidance on this term. The Eighth Circuit Court interpreted this law broadly, including anyone whose drug use happened "recently enough" to suggest they were "actively using" at the time they legally possessed a firearm.

As a result, individuals who use cannabis even once (even if state law permits it) or who take a friend's prescription medicine could face up to fifteen years in prison for possessing an otherwise legal firearm. In this way, the law primarily punishes drug use rather than regulating firearms. This statute could affect tens of millions of Americans and fails to give them proper warning about the consequences of using cannabis or other controlled substances.

Furthermore, the Eighth Circuit's interpretation does not make the vague law any clearer. This allows police officers, prosecutors, and judges to selectively decide how and when the law applies to someone who uses drugs once or occasionally. This, in turn, promotes unfair and selective punishment for certain types of drug use. This Court should review this case.

Summary of Argument

The Constitution forbids laws that are unclear. This rule helps keep the government's powers separate by making sure that Congress, not law enforcement or judges, decides what actions are crimes. It also protects individuals by requiring criminal laws to be clear enough for ordinary people to understand what is forbidden. However, the law in question, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), breaks this rule. It stops any "unlawful user" of a controlled substance from owning a gun, but it does not define who counts as an "unlawful user" or provide any guidance. A lower court, the Eighth Circuit, interpreted this law very broadly. It said the law applies to anyone whose drug use "happened recently enough to show they are actively involved in such conduct" when they lawfully possess a firearm.

This broad interpretation means that even people who use cannabis just once, even in states where it's legal, or who take a friend's prescription medicine, could face up to fifteen years in prison for simply owning a gun. In this way, the law mainly punishes drug use rather than regulating firearms. This unclear law could affect millions of Americans, and it fails to properly warn them about the possible severe results of using cannabis or another controlled substance.

Furthermore, the Eighth Circuit's interpretation does not make the law any clearer. This lack of clarity gives police officers, prosecutors, and judges too much power to decide when and how the law applies to someone who uses a controlled substance occasionally or just once. This leads to unfair and inconsistent punishment for certain types of drug use. The Supreme Court should agree to hear this case to address these issues.

Summary of Argument

The Constitution says laws must be clear. This protects how the government's power is divided. It makes sure that only Congress, not police or judges, decides what is a crime. Clear laws also keep people from accidentally breaking them. A criminal law must be plain enough so everyone knows what is not allowed. However, one law, called 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), breaks this rule. It says people who use certain drugs cannot have guns. But it does not clearly say who counts as an "unlawful user" or what that means. A court (the Eighth Circuit) decided this law means anyone who used drugs "recently enough" to show they are "actively engaged" in using them, even if they owned the gun legally otherwise.

This means someone could use marijuana just once, even if their state allows it, or take a friend's medicine. They could then go to jail for up to fifteen years just for owning a gun that they legally bought. So, this law seems to be more about punishing drug use than about controlling guns. This law could affect millions of adults. It does not clearly tell them what will happen if they use marijuana or other drugs.

Also, the court's way of reading the law does not make it clearer. This means police, lawyers, and judges can pick and choose when and how to use it against someone who used drugs once or sometimes. This leads to unfair punishments for certain types of drug use. The Supreme Court should hear this case.