Background
David Torgerson was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal statute prohibiting those who are “unlawful user[s] of or addicted to any controlled substance” from possessing firearms. On appeal, Torgerson mounted a facial Second Amendment challenge to the statute, arguing that the drug-user-in-possession ban violates the Constitution.
The Eighth Circuit panel had to decide whether to revisit established circuit precedent on this question, as binding authority in the circuit already addressed the constitutionality of § 922(g)(3).
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, rejecting Torgerson’s constitutional challenge. The court held that circuit precedent conclusively forecloses the argument. Citing Owsley v. Luebbers, 281 F.3d 687 (8th Cir. 2002), the panel noted that “it is a cardinal rule in our circuit that one panel is bound by the decision of a prior panel.”
The court emphasized that recent precedent, including United States v. Veasley, 98 F.4th 906 (8th Cir. 2024), and United States v. Seay, 620 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2010), had already confirmed that § 922(g)(3) is constitutional on its face. The court noted that if Torgerson wished to challenge this settled law, his remedy lay with the en banc court, not with a three-judge panel.
Key Takeaways
- The Eighth Circuit has firmly established, in multiple prior decisions, that the federal ban on firearm possession by drug users does not violate the Second Amendment.
- Individual panels are bound by prior circuit precedent and cannot overturn panel decisions; only en banc review may do so.
- A facial constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(3) cannot succeed in the Eighth Circuit absent en banc reconsideration.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the Eighth Circuit’s consistent position that historical firearm regulations remain valid under the Second Amendment. Despite broader Second Amendment jurisprudence in recent Supreme Court decisions, the circuit’s precedent—predating and post-dating major Supreme Court opinions—has provided stable ground for prosecutors and lower courts applying § 922(g)(3) in drug cases.
For defendants facing § 922(g)(3) charges in the Eighth Circuit, this ruling makes clear that facial constitutional challenges are unlikely to succeed absent extraordinary circumstances prompting en banc review. The decision illustrates the binding nature of circuit precedent and the high bar for overturning established law within a circuit.