ALERT UPDATE 2020 – BI-WEEKLY REPORT U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Court Wins
Edition: July 14–25, 2025
SUPREME COURT WATCH
The U.S. Supreme Court is in summer recess until October 2025. However, big developments are still happening in the circuit courts—many of which could open new doors for post-conviction relief.
CIRCUIT COURT VICTORIES: Second Amendment, Habeas Relief, Sentencing Errors & More Major wins in the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 8th, 9th, and D.C. Circuits–Hernandez v. McIntosh, (2d Cir. | July 21, 2025)
A New York state prisoner’s habeas petition under § 2254 was granted. The Second Circuit reversed the district court, finding a jury instruction error violated clearly established Supreme
Court law and was not harmless. Conditional habeas relief was ordered.
Johnson v. United States, (2d Cir. | July 17, 2025)
Mark Johnson’s coram nobis petition was granted. His wire fraud conviction relied partly on an invalid theory rejected by Ciminelli v. United States. The remaining theory wasn’t strong
enough to stand alone, so the court reversed.
United States v. Guyton, (3d Cir. | July 18, 2025)
Felon-in-possession conviction reversed for insufficient evidence. The court found the government failed to link Guyton to firearms found in an abandoned house.
United States v. Harris, (3d Cir. | July 14, 2025)
Conviction under § 922(g)(3) challenged on Second Amendment grounds. The case was remanded for factual development—specifically whether Harris’s marijuana use made him dangerous. (See
feature below for more details.)
United States v. Walker, (7th Cir. | July 17, 2025)
Evidence suppressed. The Seventh Circuit found the initial protective sweep was unlawful, tainting the consent for the second search. Case reversed and remanded.
United States v. Smith, (8th Cir. | July 24, 2025)
Sentencing error corrected. The Eighth Circuit held it was plain error for the court to base a 37-month sentence on rehabilitation needs (Tapia v. United States), and remanded for
resentencing.
United States v. Cordova Perez, (8th Cir. | July 22, 2025)
Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(3) succeeded. Case remanded to determine whether Perez’s marijuana use made him dangerous or mentally unstable under Cooper.
United States v. Petrushkin, (9th Cir. | July 14, 2025)
Sentencing enhancement reversed. The Ninth Circuit clarified appeal waivers do not bar challenges to § 2K2.1(c)(1) when based on Routon. Sentence vacated and remanded.
United States v. Morrison, Jr., (10th Cir. | July 21, 2025)
Wilbur Morrison, Jr. was convicted by a jury in Indian Country on three counts and sentenced to 480 months on Counts I and II and 120 months on Count III, all to run concurrently. At
sentencing, the court orally imposed concurrent supervised release terms of five years for Counts I and II and three years for Count III. However, the written judgment mistakenly imposed
five years of supervised release for all three counts. On appeal, Morrison argued that the written judgment conflicted with the oral sentence and should be corrected.
United States v. Glover, (D.C. Cir. | July 22, 2025)
Consent to search was not voluntary, court ruled. Implied threats during questioning tainted consent. Suppression denial vacated and remanded.
Harris Ruling Could Reshape 2nd Amendment Law for Drug Users
In *United States v. Harris (see above), the Third Circuit made waves by questioning the broad constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which bars gun possession by unlawful drug users. The court held that this ban only applies if the government can show the individual poses a specific, heightened risk of harm.
Key takeaways:
■ No categorical ban: Not all drug users automatically lose their gun rights.
■ The government must prove the individual is dangerous when armed.
■ Courts must consider individualized factors, such as mental health, behavior history, and frequency of use.
☞Surprise twist: Regular drug users might have stronger Second Amendment claims than occasional users—if they can show consistent, non-violent behavior.
The Harris decision echoes the individualized standard from Range v. Attorney General, reinforcing that Second Amendment rights may only be limited when there’s real evidence of dangerousness.
NEED HELP WITH YOUR CASE? WE CAN HELPWritten Case Evaluations (“WCE”) – Affordable, Professional, Trusted.
We’ve helped thousands. Let us help you. Services include:
- Direct appeals
- § 2255 / § 2241 motions
- First Step Act & Compassionate Release
- Federal Clemency & Pardons
- Earned Time Credit Appeals
- State & Federal Post-Conviction Strategies
- FREE § 922(g) Second Amendment case evaluations (Bruen / Range analysis)
To request a case evaluation, please include:
1. Your full name and registration number
2. Court of conviction
3. Case number
4. A reliable contact phone number
As of July 9, 2025, the BOP now restricts TRULINCS/CorrLinks emails to one recipient at a time. This has made it nearly impossible to deliver ALERT UPDATE to our 40,000+ subscribers each week.
Here’s what we’re doing:
■ Sending the newsletter bi-weekly instead of weekly
■ Hiring more staff to manage deliveries
Consolidating approved sending emails to:
■ [alertupdate2020@gmail.com]
■ [newsletter@federal-alert.com]
■ [mhalert759@gmail.com]
■ [leadingedgedefense@gmail.com]
■ [info@leadingedgeresearchteam.com]
■ [carina.garcia2@yahoo.com] (Spanish)
Please help spread the word by:
■ Sharing this newsletter with others
■ Posting it in your law library or housing unit bulletin board
© 2025 Federal-Alert. All rights reserved. If you are serious about fighting your case and want us to evaluate your case to see if you may have relief coming, request a Written Case Evaluation.