“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
An illegal drug user claimed that a federal law making it unlawful for him to possess firearms was unconstitutional and contested his conviction for that offense.
What happened in this case?
A grand jury indicted Alexander Ledvina for being an illegal drug user who purchased and possessed firearms in violation of federal law. The district court rejected his claim that the federal law violated the Second Amendment rights and, after he was convicted, he appealed to the Eighth Circuit.
How did Trump judges Ralph Erickson and David Stras rule?
In a 2-1 decision by Trump judge Ralph Erickson, joined by Trump judge David Stras, the Eighth Circuit vacated the conviction and sent the case back to the lower court. They maintained that drug use does “not automatically extinguish” a person’s Second Amendment rights and that the district court had improperly failed to determine whether Ledvina was dangerous so that the law could be applied to him. The decision was in US v Ledvina in February 2026.
What did Bush nominee Steven Colloton say in dissent?
George W Bush nominee Steven Collotton strongly dissented. He complained that as in a number of other cases, the majority “refuses to decide” whether the federal law prohibiting drug users from possessing firearms is unconstitutional. Based on past precedent, he went on, Congress properly decided that drug users and addicts presented a “special danger of misuse” of firearms, and that the court should so recognize.
Why is the result harmful?
The decision by Trump judges Erickson and Stras seriously weakens Congress’ law regulating firearms possession by drug users, particularly in the Eighth Circuit, which includes Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and North and South Dakota. The ruling also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.