Williams v. Attorney General

What the court held

Edward Williams had two Pennsylvania drunk-driving convictions from the early 2000s. The second, in 2005, was for driving at the highest blood-alcohol tier and was punishable by up to five years because it was a repeat offense, which made it a disqualifying conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was sentenced to 90 days to two years, served in home confinement. In 2015 a lawyer told him he was barred from possessing firearms, and he gave his up and sued for a declaration that the ban was unconstitutional as applied to him. The district court agreed. Sitting en banc, the Third Circuit affirmed on October 13, 2026. Judge Paul Matey wrote for seven judges: Hardiman, Bibas, Porter, Phipps, Bove and Mascott joined him. They held the government had not shown a historical tradition of permanently disarming someone in Williams's position. The opinion distinguishes dangerous driving from demonstrated violent misuse of firearms. Chief Judge Chagares concurred in the judgment, making eight votes. He would ordinarily require people seeking restoration of their rights to use the revived administrative relief process under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) first, but excused Williams given how long the case had run. Six judges dissented from the judgment. Judge Shwartz, joined by Judges Krause and Restrepo, would have upheld the ban as applied and sent Williams to § 925(c) first. Judge Freeman, joined by Judges Montgomery-Reeves and Chung, agreed with parts of the majority's method but dissented from the judgment. The ruling is as-applied: § 922(g)(1) stays in force, and other people with old non-violent convictions in the Third Circuit must still bring their own cases or seek § 925(c) relief. It builds on the circuit's earlier en banc decision in Range v. Attorney General. The government may seek Supreme Court review, where a stream of § 922(g)(1) petitions is pending.

Summarized from the court's opinion.

What this case is about

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) can constitutionally disarm for life a man whose only qualifying conviction is a second drunk-driving offense from 2005

GunMapUSA summary of the issue, not a quotation from the court.

Key Dates

• 2026-02-11 — Argued before the en banc court
• 2026-10-13 — En banc court affirms 8–6: § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to Williams

Sources

• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — retrieved 2026-10-26
• CourtListener — retrieved 2026-10-26