Cases compared
Samuel Storey v. United States vs. Lester Landrum v. United States vs. Latiff Thompson, Petitioner v. United States, et al.
Gun Rights cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
No. 25-7216No. 25-7530No. 25-7620
Side by side
| Fact | Samuel Storey v. United States | Lester Landrum v. United States | Latiff Thompson, Petitioner v. United States, et al. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-7216 | 25-7530 | 25-7620 |
| Status | Before Arguments | Before Arguments | Before Arguments |
| Date | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) |
| Question presented | 1. Can a court of appeals disregard the government’s deliberate waiver of whether a jury trial right violation is harmless in the enhanced statutory penalty context and affirm over the government’s request that the defendant be resentenced without statutory enhancement? 2. Should the Court overrule Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999), as inconsistent with Fifth and Sixth Amendment principles underlying this Court’s precedent in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and its progeny? 3. Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) exceed Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, facially and as applied to Petitioner Samuel Storey’s intrastate possession? | 1. Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violate the Second Amendment on its face or as applied to Petitioner? 2. Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) exceed Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause on its face or as applied to Petitioner’s intrastate possession of a firearm? | Whether the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’s rule (joined by other Courts of Appeals) that a subsequent panel must follow the precedent of a prior panel’s decision on the same issue, even when the arguments made before the second panel are different, violates the defendant’s constitutional rights to due process and to the effective assistance of counsel, and the right to appellate review of his claim of error? |
| Summary | Samuel Storey asks the Supreme Court to review his federal firearms conviction and enhanced sentence. He argues that the Eleventh Circuit should not have found a jury-trial error harmless after the government waived that argument and sought resentencing, that the Court should reconsider its harmless-error rule in Neder, and that the federal felon-in-possession law exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause power as applied to purely intrastate possession. | Lester Landrum asks the Supreme Court to review his federal firearm-possession case from the Fifth Circuit. He argues that the federal law barring people convicted of felonies from possessing firearms is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and exceeds Congress’s power over interstate commerce when applied to his intrastate firearm possession. | Latiff Thompson asks the Supreme Court to review whether his Hobbs Act robbery conviction can support a separate federal firearm conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He argues that Hobbs Act robbery does not categorically require threatened physical force against another person or property because it can be committed through threats of self-harm or intangible economic injury. |
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Gun Rights
- Why compared
- Reviewed Gun Rights tags connect these current-term public cases.
Related
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.