United States v. David Torgerson

Opinion

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Submitted: April 13, 2026 Filed: June 9, 2026 [Unpublished]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.”).

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.