United States v. Sanchez: Reaffirming Firearm Prohibitions for Presently-Intoxicated Controlled-Substance Users

1. Introduction

United States v. Sanchez, No. 23-50293 (5th Cir. June 13, 2025) is a non-precedential but highly instructive panel opinion in which the Fifth Circuit (Chief Judge Elrod and Circuit Judges Higginbotham & Ramirez) rejected Second-Amendment and vagueness challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)—the federal statute barring “unlawful users of, or addicts to, a controlled substance” from possessing firearms.

The appellant, Andre Edwards Sanchez, was stopped while driving a stolen vehicle. Officers discovered a Glock pistol, Xanax pills, marijuana, and later confirmed tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in his blood. After being indicted under § 922(g)(3) he moved to dismiss, contending that:

(i) the statute is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment both facially and as applied in light of N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022); and
(ii) the term “unlawful user” is void for vagueness.

The district court denied his motion, he entered a conditional guilty plea, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The decision is significant because it cements—in the Fifth Circuit at least—a post-Bruen line of authority upholding § 922(g)(3) where the defendant is presently intoxicated while armed.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The panel held:

Second-Amendment challenges fail. Under the Fifth Circuit’s 2024 decision in United States v. Connelly, 117 F.4th 269, § 922(g)(3) is facially constitutional. Moreover, history and tradition permit disarming “presently intoxicated persons.” Because Sanchez admitted he was intoxicated when he possessed the gun, both his facial and as-applied claims fail.
Vagueness challenges fail. Prior circuit authority (United States v. Patterson, 431 F.3d 832 (5th Cir. 2005) & United States v. May, 538 F. App’x 465 (5th Cir. 2013)) holds that regular, contemporaneous drug use provides fair notice. Sanchez’s own statements, social-media posts, blood test, and prior adjudication placed him squarely within the statute’s reach.
Procedural note. Although labeled “unpublished,” the opinion underscores that panels may affirm on any ground supported by the record (United States v. Holdman, 75 F.4th 514 (5th Cir. 2023)) and clarifies the binding effect of Connelly.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022) – Provided the current two-step framework: (1) text covers individual’s conduct, then (2) government must show historical tradition supporting restriction. Sanchez relied on Bruen but the Fifth Circuit found historical analogues for disarming intoxicated persons.
United States v. Connelly (5th Cir. 2024) – Upheld § 922(g)(3) facially and, in dicta-turned-binding, recognized a tradition of banning presently intoxicated individuals from firearms. The panel treated Connelly’s facial holding as controlling.
United States v. Daniels, 124 F.4th 967 (5th Cir. 2025) – Reiterated Connelly’s “presently intoxicated” language; cited to confirm that historical tradition supports § 922(g)(3).
United States v. Patterson (2005) & United States v. May (2013) – Established that “some regularity” of drug use suffices for “unlawful user”; used to dispose of vagueness arguments.
Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015); Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) – General vagueness principles: fair notice and arbitrary enforcement.
United States v. Segura (5th Cir. 2014) & Kanida v. Gulf Coast Med. Pers. (5th Cir. 2004) – Clarified that even arguably unnecessary holdings can be binding precedent when the issue is fully argued and decided.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

Step One: Constitutional Text. There is no dispute that “the people” includes Sanchez, so the burden shifts to the government.
Step Two: Historical Tradition.
- The government (and Connelly) identified 18th–19th-century laws criminalizing firearm possession while drunk, carrying weapons in a “state of intoxication,” etc.
- The panel adopted Connelly’s conclusion that this tradition is sufficiently analogous to § 922(g)(3) as applied to a user actually intoxicated.
As-Applied Dimension. Because Sanchez conceded contemporaneous marijuana intoxication, the historical analogue fit “squarely,” making the statute constitutional as applied.
Vagueness Analysis.
- Because no First-Amendment interest was at stake, only the as-applied vagueness challenge was cognizable.
- Patterson/May require “regularity + temporal proximity.” Sanchez’s own admissions, drug paraphernalia, old juvenile adjudication, and social-media posts met this standard.
- An ordinary person would therefore have notice that possessing a gun while high on marijuana is prohibited.

3.3 Potential Impact

Even though designated “not for publication,” Sanchez is the first post-Connelly Fifth-Circuit opinion applying—or more precisely, enforcing—Connelly’s rule in a contested case. Its practical and doctrinal consequences include:

Settled Law in the Fifth Circuit. District courts within the circuit have authoritative assurance that facial and as-applied Second-Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(3) will fail whenever the defendant is intoxicated at the time of gun possession.
Strategic Litigation Shift. Defendants are likely to pivot toward challenging the factual predicate of “unlawful user” (e.g., frequency of use) rather than the statute’s constitutionality.
Guidance Beyond the Circuit. Other circuits wrestling with § 922(g)(3) after Bruen may cite Connelly/Sanchez for the tailored “presently intoxicated” tradition, promoting doctrinal convergence.
Marijuana Legalization Tension. As more states legalize cannabis, the decision underscores that federal firearms disabilities persist, especially where actual intoxication can be proved.
Precedential Nuance. By treating Connelly’s arguably “dicta” facial holding as binding, Sanchez may invigorate debate about what constitutes binding circuit authority.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Facial vs. As-Applied Challenge: A facial attack claims a law is invalid in all its applications; an as-applied attack says the law is invalid in the challenger’s specific circumstances.
Void for Vagueness: A criminal law is unconstitutional if people of ordinary intelligence cannot tell what behavior is prohibited or if it enables arbitrary enforcement.
Binding vs. Dicta: “Dicta” are statements not necessary to decide a case, but the Fifth Circuit treats fully-considered, litigated determinations as binding even if another route could have resolved the appeal.
Presently Intoxicated Analogue: Historical firearm laws punished carrying a weapon while drunk. The Fifth Circuit sees this as a close “analogue” justifying modern bans on possessing guns while under the influence of drugs.
Unlawful User Standard: Requires (a) regular or habitual use and (b) use close in time to the firearm possession—proved through admissions, drug tests, or circumstantial evidence.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Sanchez fortifies the Fifth Circuit’s post-Bruen landscape: § 922(g)(3) remains constitutional when applied to individuals who are presently intoxicated by controlled substances while armed. The court also dismissed vagueness concerns, reiterating that ordinary citizens receive fair notice that mixing firearms with active drug use is forbidden. Although unpublished, the decision supplies persuasive authority and practical guidance for law-enforcement officers, prosecutors, defense counsel, and lower courts. Its broader significance lies in crystallizing the “presently-intoxicated” historical analogue and in illustrating how ostensibly peripheral statements from earlier cases (Connelly) operate as binding precedent within the circuit.