United States of America v. David Torgerson

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2195
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
David Torgerson
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Northern
____________
Submitted: April 13, 2026
Filed: June 9, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
David Torgerson argues that the drug-user-in-possession statute, see 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), facially violates the Second Amendment. Circuit precedent,
however, forecloses the argument. See Owsley v. Luebbers, 281 F.3d 687, 690 (8th
Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (“It is a cardinal rule in our circuit that one panel is bound
by the decision of a prior panel.”).

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
Under federal law, drug users like Torgerson cannot have firearms. See 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) (disarming those who are “unlawful user[s] of or addicted to any
controlled substance”). A recent case confirmed that the statute criminalizing it is
constitutional on its face. See United States v. Veasley, 98 F.4th 906, 909, 916 (8th
Cir. 2024); see also United States v. Seay, 620 F.3d 919, 925 (8th Cir. 2010). To the
extent Torgerson disagrees, his remedy lies with the en banc court, not with us. See
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Elgin Warehouse & Equip., 4 F.3d 567, 571 (8th Cir. 1993)
(“In this circuit only an en banc court may overrule a panel decision . . . .”). We
accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.1
______________________________
1 The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the
District of South Dakota.

-- 2 of 2 --