Silencer registration rules
Miller v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Drew Miller asked the Supreme Court to review whether his lawyer failed to provide adequate help by refusing to challenge the federal law on unregistered silencers, and whether Miller’s guilty plea was involuntary because he was not told it would limit appeals of his constitutional claims.
- Who it affects
- The denial leaves Miller's two claims without a decision from the Supreme Court.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.

What it's about
The Court refused to hear the case (denied review), so it did not decide either claim.
Miller pleaded guilty to possessing unregistered silencers and challenged both his lawyer's handling of a constitutional challenge and what he understood about appeal limits.
Question presented
1. Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), by refusing to file a motion to dismiss under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), challenging the constitutionality of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) for possession of unregistered silencers, despite Petitioner’s repeated instructions and the absence of any circuit precedent upholding the statute post-Bruen. 2. Whether Petitioner’s guilty plea was involuntary under Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970), where counsel failed to advise that the plea would limit appellate review of constitutional challenges to plain error, and Petitioner objected during the colloquy specifically to preserve his Bruen and Second Amendment claims regarding loss of firearm rights.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.