United States v. Morales-Lopez, 92 F.4th 936

Jonathan Morales was convicted by a jury under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) for possessing a firearm as an "unlawful user" of a controlled substance.
The conviction arose after Morales and an accomplice attempted to steal firearms from a Utah store; Morales was apprehended with a loaded handgun and methamphetamine.
Post-trial, the district court dismissed the charge on the basis that § 922(g)(3) was unconstitutionally vague, both on its face and as applied to Morales's conduct.
The government appealed, arguing that precedent forecloses both facial and as-applied vagueness challenges for clearly proscribed conduct.
The Tenth Circuit reversed, holding the statute was not vague as applied to Morales and that the district court erred in permitting a facial challenge.

Issue	Government's Argument	Morales's Argument	Held
Can Morales bring a facial vagueness challenge to § 922(g)(3)?	Binding precedent bars facial attacks where one’s conduct is clearly covered by the statute.	Johnson allows facial challenges even if statute is constitutional under some factual scenarios.	No; Morales cannot make a facial challenge as his conduct is clearly proscribed.
Is § 922(g)(3) unconstitutionally vague as applied to Morales?	Ample evidence showed regular and ongoing drug use contemporaneous with firearm possession.	Insufficient evidence of drug use proximate to possession; statute doesn’t give ordinary notice.	No; the statute gives clear notice and evidence shows the required nexus.

Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (Traditional rule that one whose conduct is clearly proscribed can’t mount a facial vagueness challenge.)
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (Plaintiff engaging in clearly proscribed conduct cannot complain of statute’s vagueness as applied to others.)
Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (Addressed vagueness in criminal sentencing enhancements, clarified limits on facial challenges.)
United States v. Reed, 114 F.3d 1067 (10th Cir. 1997) (Facial vagueness challenge to § 922(g)(3) not permitted where conduct is clearly covered.)
United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (Concept that statutes must provide fair warning for criminal liability.)
United States v. Bennett, 329 F.3d 769 (Temporal nexus between ongoing drug use and firearm possession suffices for conviction.)