8th Circuit upholds federal law banning drug users from owning guns, ruling it is constitutional…
United States v. Keshon Baxter
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
8th Circuit upholds federal law banning drug users from owning guns, ruling it is constitutional as applied to a marijuana-using Iowa man who carried a loaded pistol during a gang fight.
Why it matters
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Keshon Baxter's motion to dismiss his federal firearm charge, ruling that the law prohibiting unlawful drug users from possessing firearms does not violate the Second Amendment as applied to him. The court relied on a two-part historical test and found that two historical traditions supported the restriction: disarming those who are mentally ill and dangerous, and disarming those who terrorize or threaten others. Evidence of Baxter's chronic marijuana use, his gang involvement, and his social media posts displaying firearms supported the conclusion that he fell within those historical analogues.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects people charged under the federal law that prohibits unlawful drug users from possessing firearms, particularly in cases where defendants argue the law is unconstitutional as applied to them. It is also relevant to federal prosecutors and courts in the Eighth Circuit who must apply the historical analogue test to such cases.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 13, 2026
Published opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 13, 2026Published opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 13, 2026 · Published opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
The central question in this case was whether a federal law, 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(3), which makes it a crime for an unlawful drug user to possess a firearm, violates the Second Amendment as applied to Keshon Baxter, a man from Des Moines, Iowa who was found carrying a loaded pistol while also possessing marijuana during a gang fight in May 2023. Baxter argued the law was unconstitutional as it applied to his specific circumstances. This was the second time the case reached the Eighth Circuit. In an earlier round, the court had reversed the district court for failing to develop a sufficient record on the constitutional question, and sent the case back for a fuller hearing. On remand, the district court held an evidentiary hearing where the government presented photographs, videos, police reports, and expert testimony. A toxicologist testified about the link between chronic cannabis use and violent behavior. A gang crimes detective testified that Baxter had used marijuana daily based on hundreds of social media posts, had started using marijuana at age 13, and had posted videos and photos with at least ten different firearms. The district court found Baxter provisionally guilty at a bench trial and then denied his motion to dismiss after the hearing, finding the law constitutional as applied to him. The district court applied the two-part test established by the Supreme Court in Bruen, first finding that Baxter's conduct was covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, and then asking whether the government could show a historical tradition that justified the restriction. It found two applicable historical analogues recognized by the Eighth Circuit: the tradition of disarming those who are mentally ill and dangerous, and the tradition of disarming those who terrorize or threaten others. The district court concluded that Baxter's behavior on the night of his arrest fit the first analogue, and that his overall conduct, criminal history, and social media activity fit the second. The Eighth Circuit affirmed that ruling. The source text does not reflect any dissenting opinion in this case. The court's decision does not appear to change the law broadly but applies the existing constitutional framework to the specific facts of Baxter's situation, affirming that the statute can be constitutionally applied to individuals whose drug use and behavior place them within recognized historical categories of people who could lawfully be disarmed.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 25-2752 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Keshon Daveon Baxter Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central ____________ Submitted: April 16, 2026 Filed: July 13, 2026 ____________ Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge. A federal grand jury indicted Keshon Baxter on a charge of possessing a firearm as an unlawful drug user in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3) and 924(a)(8). After proceedings before this Court and remand back to the district court,1 1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. Baxter made an oral renewed motion to dismiss his indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(3) is unconstitutional as applied to him. The district court reserved ruling on this motion pending his trial and a post-trial dangerousness hearing. At a bench trial on stipulated facts and evidence, the district court found Baxter provisionally guilty until it resolved his constitutional challenge contained within his motion to dismiss. The district court then held an evidentiary hearing regarding Baxter’s motion to dismiss and subsequently denied it. It then sentenced him to 64 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release. Baxter appeals the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. I. On May 21, 2023, gang members from two gangs—Strap and C-Block— began fighting in downtown Des Moines, Iowa. Baxter, a Strap gang member, was involved in this fight. When law enforcement attempted to break up the fight, the gang members ran in opposite directions, but resumed fighting 30 minutes later. The officers again approached, and Baxter and other Strap members chased the C-Block gang. As the officers were pursuing the chase, a bystander told them that Baxter had a gun. The officers then confronted Baxter and asked what was in his pocket. Baxter responded, “nothing” and ran from the officers. He was apprehended shortly thereafter. The officers searched Baxter and found a loaded pistol and a baggie of marijuana on his person. The officers then obtained a search warrant to test Baxter’s urine for the presence of controlled substances; the test confirmed the presence of THC or marijuana metabolites. Baxter was subsequently charged in a one-count indictment for being an unlawful drug user in possession of a firearm (namely, a Taurus 0.40 caliber pistol) between August 31, 2022, and May 21, 2023. This is the second time this case has been before our Court. In August 2023, Baxter filed a motion to dismiss his indictment on the grounds that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) violated the Second Amendment as applied to him; he also claimed that the statute was unconstitutionally vague. The district court denied his motion without a hearing, and Baxter entered a conditional guilty plea to being an -2- unlawful user of marijuana in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3) and 924(a)(8) but reserved the right to appeal the district court’s ruling on his motion to dismiss. The district court sentenced him to 64 months’ imprisonment. Baxter appealed. We affirmed the district court’s conclusion that § 922(g)(3) was not unconstitutionally vague but reversed and remanded its denial of Baxter’s motion to dismiss, finding that the record was insufficient to determine whether § 922(g)(3) was unconstitutional as applied to him. See United States v. Baxter, 127 F.4th 1087, 1090-92 (8th Cir. 2025). On remand, the district court granted Baxter leave to withdraw his guilty plea. He did so. The parties then proceeded to a bench trial on a stipulated record, and the district court found Baxter guilty. The district court then held an evidentiary hearing regarding Baxter’s motion to dismiss. At the evidentiary hearing, the Government introduced photographs and videos taken by law enforcement and from Baxter’s social media accounts, police reports, and physical evidence. Many of these photos and videos showed Baxter smoking or possessing marijuana, while others depicted Baxter displaying, brandishing, or pointing various firearms at the camera. The Government also presented testimony from Dr. Marilyn Huestis, a toxicologist, and detective Jeffrey George of the Des Moines Police Department. Dr. Huestis has more than 55 years of experience as a pharmacologist and toxicologist. Although she did not evaluate Baxter, she testified that there is a strong connection between chronic cannabis use and aggressive and violent behavior. She noted that such behaviors are also common symptoms of withdrawal, which individuals can experience several days after their last marijuana use. Detective George works in the Des Moines Police Department’s Intelligence Section, and his expertise is in gang-related crime and violent crime. He acknowledged that Baxter admitted he started using marijuana at age 13. Moreover, he testified that although Baxter claimed he smoked one blunt of marijuana twice a -3- week, from his review of Baxter’s Snapchat activity from January 2022 to March 2023, he posited that Baxter used marijuana daily as “[t]here were hundreds of videos of him in possession of and consuming marijuana.” He also testified that there were a similar number of photos and videos showing Baxter possessing firearms; Baxter frequently posted photos and videos with at least ten different firearms—four of which are now in law enforcement possession. Following the evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Baxter’s motion to dismiss, holding that § 922(g)(3) did not violate the Second Amendment as applied to him. It applied the two-part Bruen2 test and first concluded that Baxter’s conduct was clearly protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment. As to prong two, the district court concluded that the Government has the burden of establishing the facts necessary to demonstrate a historical analogue by a preponderance of the evidence. It acknowledged that this Court has recognized two historical analogues for § 922(g)(3): the longstanding tradition of disarming those who are both mentally ill and dangerous and those who terrorize or threaten others. It went on to hold that § 922(g)(3) was constitutional as applied to Baxter under both analogues. First, it concluded that his conduct on the night of his arrest was “precisely the type of dangerous behavior which would have been prohibited under historical analogue for the mentally ill.” Second, the court held that Baxter terrorized and posed a credible threat to public safety based on his criminal history, his social media activity, and his conduct on the night of his arrest. Accordingly, the district court sentenced Baxter to 64 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release. Baxter appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss. II. Baxter contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss because, as applied to him, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) violates his Second Amendment right to
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.