Background
Dylan James Youngblood was arrested in Kalispell, Montana, on an outstanding felony warrant. Officers found fentanyl pills on him and two pistols, drug paraphernalia, and suspected methamphetamine in his car. Youngblood admitted owning one pistol and using fentanyl earlier that day.
A grand jury charged Youngblood under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which bars firearm possession by an unlawful user of or person addicted to a controlled substance. He unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the indictment on Second Amendment grounds, then entered a conditional guilty plea preserving that issue for appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit affirmed. It held that its prior decision in United States v. Stennerson, which found § 922(g)(3) facially constitutional, remained binding after the Supreme Court’s later decision in United States v. Hemani. Hemani held the statute unconstitutional as applied to a person who used marijuana about every other day, but did not decide facial validity and expressly left open restrictions on presently intoxicated firearm possessors.
Because Stennerson found at least one constitutional application of the statute—its application to presently intoxicated individuals—and was not clearly irreconcilable with Hemani, Youngblood’s facial challenge failed. The panel declined to reach his individual as-applied challenge because his opening brief did not specifically and distinctly develop that argument.
Key Takeaways
- Stennerson’s holding that § 922(g)(3) is facially constitutional remains Ninth Circuit precedent after Hemani.
- Hemani was a narrow as-applied decision and left unresolved the statute’s application to presently intoxicated persons.
- An appellant waives an as-applied constitutional claim by failing to specifically and distinctly argue it in the opening brief.
Why It Matters
The decision preserves the Ninth Circuit’s facial-validity rule for § 922(g)(3), notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s invalidation of the statute in a particular marijuana-use case. Defendants bringing individualized Second Amendment challenges must develop the factual and legal basis for those claims in their opening appellate briefs.