Latest Updates
Federal Firearm Rights Restoration in 2026: § 925(c) Applications, Gun Cases & First Step Act Changes
September 21–25, 2026 federal update covering the new § 925(c) firearm-rights restoration process, First Step Act time credits, § 922(g)(1) litigation, compassionate release, and appellate waivers.
Federal Firearm Rights Restoration and Other Major Federal Developments
Federal firearm rights restoration moved forward this week as the Department of Justice began the first phase of its new process under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c).
At the same time, federal courts continued addressing constitutional challenges to the felon-in-possession statute, the Bureau of Prisons announced a significant First Step Act time-credit change, compassionate-release law narrowed further, and the Fifth Circuit gave an early look at how difficult it may be to overcome an appellate waiver under the Supreme Court’s new Hunter standard.
This was not a particularly busy week in terms of the number of new federal appellate decisions, but several developments could have practical importance for federal defendants and prisoners.
Federal Relief Consideration: A new case, administrative program, or BOP rule change does not automatically create relief. The question is whether the development actually applies to the individual conviction, sentence, custody calculation, or firearm disability involved.
This update is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create legal representation.
Federal Firearm Law Watch
Fifth Circuit to Rehear Major § 922(g)(1) Commerce Clause Challenge
Most recent challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the federal felon-in-possession statute, have focused on the Second Amendment. United States v. Squire takes a different approach.
The Fifth Circuit has granted rehearing en banc in Squire, No. 25-30324, and placed the case on its January 2027 en banc calendar.
The court’s grant of rehearing vacated the earlier panel decision.
Squire argues that Congress exceeded its Commerce Clause authority by making it a federal crime for a felon to possess a firearm based on the fact that the firearm previously traveled in interstate commerce.
In the typical felon-in-possession prosecution, the Government satisfies the interstate-commerce element by proving that the firearm was manufactured in another state and therefore crossed state lines at some point before the defendant possessed it.
The issue in Squire is whether that earlier interstate movement is sufficient to allow Congress to regulate later possession that is otherwise purely local.
The significance could extend beyond § 922(g)(1), because many federal criminal statutes rely on some connection to interstate commerce to establish federal jurisdiction.
Federal Relief Consideration: Section 922(g)(1) remains enforceable. The Fifth Circuit’s decision to rehear Squire en banc does not itself invalidate the statute.
First Circuit Rejects Second Amendment Challenge to § 922(g)(1)
While the Fifth Circuit prepares to consider § 922(g)(1) under the Commerce Clause, the First Circuit recently addressed the statute through the Second Amendment.
In United States v. Levasseur, No. 24-1687, decided September 16, 2026, the First Circuit upheld a § 922(g)(1) conviction against an as-applied Second Amendment challenge.
The court treated the relevant inquiry as whether the defendant presented the type of “special danger of misuse” that permits firearm disarmament.
The court did not limit the dangerousness inquiry solely to prior convictions involving physical violence.
The contrast between Levasseur and Squire is important. Levasseur asks who may constitutionally be disarmed under the Second Amendment. Squire asks whether Congress had sufficient Commerce Clause authority to regulate the local possession in the first place.
Both questions could influence future litigation involving federal felon-in-possession prosecutions.
Federal Firearm Rights Restoration Program Begins Under § 925(c)
There is also an important development outside the courts.
On September 25, 2026, the Department of Justice begins the first phase of its new federal firearm rights restoration program under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c).
The initial phase is limited to invited applicants.
DOJ has stated that the program will open to the first 5,000 members of the general public on November 4, 2026.
Applications will require supporting documentation, electronic fingerprints, and character references.
DOJ has also stated that applications will be handled through the Office of the Pardon Attorney rather than ATF.
For individuals with old federal convictions who have remained law-abiding and are otherwise eligible, the program creates a potential administrative avenue that did not meaningfully exist for many years.
Federal Relief Consideration: Constitutional litigation such as Squire and Levasseur challenges the legality of firearm disabilities through the courts. Section 925(c), by contrast, provides an individualized administrative process for restoration of federal firearm rights.
BOP and First Step Act Watch
BOP Changes When First Step Act Time Credits May Begin to Accrue
Effective September 30, 2026, the Bureau of Prisons is changing 28 C.F.R. § 523.42(a), the regulation governing when an eligible prisoner may begin earning First Step Act time credits.
Under the existing rule, eligibility generally begins when the prisoner arrives or voluntarily surrenders at the designated BOP facility where the sentence will be served.
The amended rule moves that starting point earlier and allows eligible prisoners to begin earning credits after the federal term of imprisonment commences.
That change may matter for prisoners who spend weeks between sentencing and arrival at their designated institution.
Under the previous rule, that period generally fell outside the credit-earning window. Under the new rule, qualifying activity during that period may potentially count.
Courts had already rejected the BOP’s narrower interpretation of the First Step Act. In Miles v. Bowers, the First Circuit held that the regulation conflicted with the statutory framework governing commencement of a federal sentence.
The BOP amendment therefore brings the regulation more closely into line with the statute and the decisions construing it.
Federal Relief Consideration: Prisoners should not assume that every day between sentencing and arrival at the designated institution automatically produces First Step Act credits. Eligibility is only one part of the analysis, and the prisoner must still satisfy the statutory requirements for earning credits.
For prisoners whose FSA calculations excluded time between commencement of the sentence and arrival at the designated institution, the September 30 change may justify having the calculation reviewed again.
BOP Creates a Dedicated First Step Act Office
The BOP also announced that it is creating a dedicated First Step Act Office.
The office is intended to oversee implementation of the statute, including time-credit calculations, programming, training, compliance, and related administrative issues.
First Step Act implementation has produced years of disputes involving credit calculations, eligibility rules, programming, and prerelease placement.
Whether the new office will reduce those disputes remains to be seen, but the creation of a centralized unit suggests that First Step Act administration is becoming a more formal and permanent part of BOP operations.
Federal Relief Consideration: Prisoners and families should obtain and review the actual credit calculation, identify the periods the BOP counted or excluded, and determine whether the calculation complies with current statutes, regulations, and case law.
Compassionate Release Watch
Ninth Circuit Closes Another Door on Nonretroactive Sentencing Changes
The Supreme Court’s decision in Rutherford v. United States already made clear that nonretroactive statutory changes generally cannot simply be repackaged as extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release.
The Ninth Circuit has now extended that restrictive approach to nonretroactive changes in the Sentencing Guidelines.
In United States v. Troiano, No. 24-6621, decided September 14, 2026, the Ninth Circuit rejected an argument that U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 improperly exceeded the Sentencing Commission’s authority by specifying circumstances that may not qualify as extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction.
Troiano argued that 28 U.S.C. § 994(t) authorizes the Commission to describe what should be considered extraordinary and compelling, but does not expressly authorize the Commission to exclude particular circumstances.
The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument.
The court concluded that §§ 1B1.13(b)(6) and (c) validly prevent district courts from treating nonretroactive Guideline amendments as extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release.
Troiano also argued that even if one nonretroactive Guideline amendment could not qualify, the combined effect of several amendments should be considered.
The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument as well.
Federal Relief Consideration: After Rutherford and Troiano, defendants should be cautious about building compassionate-release motions primarily around sentencing changes that Congress or the Sentencing Commission chose not to make retroactive.
A strong compassionate-release motion increasingly requires an independent extraordinary and compelling circumstance recognized under the statute and § 1B1.13, followed by a persuasive showing under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
Federal Circuit Court Watch
Fifth Circuit Shows How High the New Hunter Appeal-Waiver Bar Really Is
The Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Chaney provides an early look at how difficult it may be to use the Supreme Court’s new miscarriage-of-justice exception to overcome an otherwise valid appellate waiver.
Devin Chaney pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act robbery and armed bank robbery and agreed to waive most of his appellate rights.
He later challenged his Career Offender designation under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. The Fifth Circuit originally enforced the waiver and dismissed the appeal.
The Supreme Court then decided Hunter v. United States, holding that an appellate waiver may be unenforceable when enforcement would result in a miscarriage of justice.
The Supreme Court described that exception as a high bar intended for extreme cases.
On remand, Chaney argued that his Career Offender designation was erroneous because his Louisiana controlled-substance conviction swept more broadly than the federal definition.
The Fifth Circuit still dismissed the appeal.
The court held that even if the district court committed clear or plain error in applying the Career Offender enhancement, that kind of Guidelines error did not rise to the level of an extreme or egregious miscarriage of justice under Hunter.
The Fifth Circuit also rejected Chaney’s procedural argument because he had been given an opportunity to object and explain his position.
Federal Relief Consideration: Hunter created a genuine exception to appellate waivers, but Chaney shows that the exception is narrow. Ordinary sentencing mistakes, even potentially significant Guidelines errors, may not be enough.
Defendants attempting to overcome appellate waivers may need to identify something more fundamental, such as a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum, a major constitutional violation, or a breakdown in basic judicial process.
A Change in the Law Does Not Automatically Change the Case
This week’s developments reinforce an important point: a change in federal law does not automatically mean that a conviction or sentence can be challenged successfully.
A defendant with a § 922(g)(1) conviction may read about Squire and wonder whether the conviction is now vulnerable.
A prisoner serving a lengthy sentence may look at Troiano and Rutherford and ask whether compassionate release remains available.
Someone who waived appellate rights may read Hunter and assume that the waiver can now be bypassed.
In each situation, the answer depends on the details.
The governing court, circuit, statute of conviction, plea agreement, sentencing record, prior convictions, procedural history, and timing can all matter.
A potentially useful legal development may have little effect in one case and substantial significance in another.
That is why individualized case review matters more than broad conclusions based on a headline.
Frequently Asked Questions About Federal Firearm Rights Restoration
What is federal firearm rights restoration under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c)?
Section 925(c) provides an individualized administrative process through which certain individuals subject to federal firearm disabilities may seek restoration of federal firearm rights.
When did the new federal firearm rights restoration process begin?
According to the DOJ timetable discussed in this update, the first phase begins September 25, 2026 and is limited to invited applicants.
When does the process open to the general public?
DOJ has stated that the process will open to the first 5,000 members of the general public on November 4, 2026.
What documents are required for a § 925(c) application?
DOJ has stated that applications will require supporting documentation, electronic fingerprints, and character references.
Does § 925(c) automatically restore gun rights after a federal conviction?
No. Section 925(c) creates an individualized application process. The existence of the program does not mean that every applicant will qualify or receive relief.
Is § 925(c) the same as challenging § 922(g)(1) in court?
No. Constitutional litigation involving § 922(g)(1) challenges the validity or application of a firearm prohibition through the courts. Section 925(c) is an administrative process for individualized restoration of federal firearm rights.
What Is the APEX Free Quick Look?
Sometimes the most important question is not how to file something. It is whether there is anything worth filing at all.
The APEX Free Quick Look is a limited initial review designed to help answer that question.
If you or a family member believes a federal conviction, sentence, First Step Act credit calculation, compassionate-release issue, appellate waiver, firearm disability, or another post-conviction matter deserves closer examination, APEX Federal Relief can take a preliminary look at the basic facts and available documents.
The Free Quick Look is not a full written case evaluation and does not include extensive legal research, drafting, or representation.
It is an initial assessment intended to identify whether there appears to be a potentially viable issue that may justify further review.
Helpful materials may include:
- The judgment
- Sentencing information
- Relevant court orders
- Appellate decisions
- First Step Act credit calculations
- Prior post-conviction filings
- A short explanation of the issue being raised
If the Quick Look suggests that additional work may be worthwhile, APEX can identify what additional records, research, or analysis may be needed before a decision is made about moving forward.
There is no guarantee that every case will present a viable claim.
This Week’s Developments May Matter — But Only If They Apply to the Case
This week may have been relatively light in new appellate opinions, but the developments were significant.
The continuing litigation over § 922(g)(1), the start of the new federal firearm-rights restoration process, the First Step Act credit change, the narrowing compassionate-release landscape, and the Fifth Circuit’s treatment of the new Hunter exception all show how quickly federal sentencing and post-conviction law can change.
A decision that appears narrow today may become more significant as other courts begin applying it.
The central question remains whether a change in federal law or policy creates a meaningful opportunity in the particular case being reviewed.