The Supreme Court’s October–November 2025 docket quietly set up several cases that could reshape day‑to‑day federal criminal practice. Four grants in particular deserve attention: United States v. Hemani, Barrett v. United States, Ellingburg v. United States, and Villarreal v. Texas, along with Noem v. Al Otro Lado on the border.
United States v. Hemani (No. 24‑1234) squarely targets 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which criminalizes possession of a firearm by an “unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance.” The question presented is whether § 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment as applied to Hemani, a regular marijuana user. The case materials and question presented are available on the Court’s site and SCOTUSblog. If the Court constrains § 922(g)(3), a significant category of federal gun cases will become harder to prosecute, and past convictions could be vulnerable on collateral review.
Barrett v. United States (No. 24‑5774) asks how far the government can stack punishments under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and 924(j) for a single course of conduct involving a firearm and a homicide, without running afoul of the Double Jeopardy Clause. See summaries at Oyez and Cornell. A decision limiting cumulative punishment would immediately affect sentencing exposure in robbery and drug cases with a death component and open a path for resentencing in some long sentences imposed under both subsections.
Ellingburg v. United States (No. 24‑482) raises a narrower but important issue: whether restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act is “punishment” for Ex Post Facto purposes. Background is available in a Congressional Research Service summary and on SCOTUSblog. If the Court holds that MVRA restitution is penal, retroactive extensions of restitution liability periods and interest rules will face serious constitutional limits.
Villarreal v. Texas (No. 24‑557) revisits the right to counsel during trial recesses. The Court will decide whether a judge violates the Sixth Amendment by barring a defendant and counsel from discussing ongoing testimony during an overnight recess. See discussion of the case on SCOTUSblog and Oyez. Any bright‑line rule will apply in federal court and may force changes in how trial judges manage in‑trial testimony.
Finally, Noem v. Al Otro Lado deals with asylum “metering” and whether migrants held at the line of a port of entry have “arrived” in the United States. A summary is available at SCOTUSblog and Jurist. The decision will not directly change criminal statutes, but any clarification of “entry” and presence at the border will bleed into illegal entry, reentry, and smuggling litigation.
Federal practitioners should be tracking these cases now, preserving issues in pending cases, and thinking ahead about post‑conviction opportunities once opinions arrive in 2026.