Summary
The Sixth Circuit hears arguments regarding Reggie Jordan's federal firearm conviction and sentence, stemming from an incident where he posted videos of himself with guns at a shooting range. Following a search of his apartment, authorities found firearms, drug paraphernalia, and scales, leading to his conviction as a felon in possession of firearms. Jordan, who has a prior armed robbery conviction, received a ten-year federal sentence, which is to be served consecutively with a sixteen-year state sentence related to a later incident.
Jordan's attorney argues that the sentencing judge placed excessive emphasis on his criminal history, resulting in an unreasonably harsh punishment. The defense contends that Jordan's conduct did not involve using firearms in a criminal context and that the application of the federal gun ban violates his Second Amendment rights. The government counters that Jordan's possession of firearms was linked to drug trafficking activities, justifying the sentence based on his criminal record and the circumstances surrounding the gun possession.
A key point of contention is whether Jordan's sentences should run concurrently or consecutively. The defense claims the judge's decision to impose consecutive sentences reflects a desire to extend Jordan's time in prison beyond what is warranted by the nature of his offenses. The government maintains that the judge acted within his discretion, citing the seriousness of Jordan's criminal history and the context of the firearm possession. The court will consider these arguments before making a ruling on the appropriateness of Jordan's sentence.
Show Notes
The Sixth Circuit considers Reggie Jordan's federal firearm conviction and sentence. The investigation began after Jordan posted footage of himself with guns at a shooting range. A search of his apartment found firearms, scales, a press, and drug residue. He had an earlier armed-robbery conviction, and a federal jury found him guilty of possessing firearms and ammunition as a felon. He received ten years in federal prison. Separate state proceedings for a later incident resulted in a sixteen-year minimum sentence. A central question is whether the federal term should be added to that state sentence, or served at the same time. Consecutive terms run one after the other; concurrent terms overlap. Jordan's lawyer will argue that the judge gave his criminal history too much weight and created an unduly harsh total punishment. He will also argue that applying the federal gun ban to Jordan violates the Second Amendment. The government will defend the sentence and rely on Jordan's record and the circumstances of the gun possession to justify disarming him.
United States v. Reggie Jordan (No. 25-3685) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, argued October 22, 2026.
Sources:
Argument audio — official Sixth Circuit recording: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/court_audio/audio/10-22-2026%20-%20Thursday/25-3685%20USA%20v%20Reggie%20Jordan.mp3
Case and argument date — official Sixth Circuit audio archive: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/court_audio/aud1.php
Prior criminal history and constitutional challenge — district court, June 29, 2023, Doc. 29: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_23-cr-00159/pdf/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_23-cr-00159-0.pdf
Investigation, federal jury conviction and sentence — Justice Department, August 25, 2025: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndoh/pr/violent-felon-sentenced-decade-prison-possession-firearms-and-ammunition
Separate state case and sentence — State v. Jordan, Ohio No. 115473, pages 1–8: https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2026/2026-Ohio-3956.pdf
Felon firearm-possession restriction — 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
Concurrent and consecutive terms — 18 U.S.C. 3584: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3584
Sentencing considerations — 18 U.S.C. 3553(a): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3553
More from Oral Arguments, with Context
The Sixth Circuit hears a challenge to Tennessee's twenty-five-foot police buffer law. Gannett and other news organizations say their reporters need to get close enough to police activity to hear, film, and ask questions at protests, crime scenes, and traffic stops. The challenged 2025 law makes it a misdemeanor intentionally to approach within twenty-five feet after an officer orders a person to stop approaching or retreat, while lawfully performing specified duties. Those include a lawful traffic stop, investigation of the scene of an alleged crime, or an ongoing and immediate threat to public safety. The news organizations sued to block enforcement. A district judge refused a preliminary injunction—a temporary order that would stop enforcement while the case proceeds—and they appealed. Grayson Clary of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press will argue that the law gives officers too much discretion and discourages protected newsgathering. The state will defend the law as a clear safety rule. When the lawyers discuss vagueness, they mean fair notice of what is forbidden and limits on arbitrary enforcement—not merely whether twenty-five feet can be measured. There is also a threshold question: whether the plaintiffs face a sufficiently real risk of enforcement to ask a federal court to intervene.
The Ninth Circuit considers a challenge to a prison sentence arising from a 2011 shooting in a gang-racketeering case. A federal jury convicted Adrian Gordon of attempted murder and assault in aid of racketeering, along with a related firearm offense. In 2018, he received twenty-seven years in prison, including ten years added for the firearm count. After losing his direct appeal, Gordon filed a postconviction motion without a lawyer. The district judge denied it, and he is now appealing that denial. For his firearm conviction, Section 924(c) requires a qualifying underlying crime of violence. That is a legal category, not simply a description of how frightening the events were. You will hear about VICAR, short for violent crimes in aid of racketeering, and Pinkerton liability. Under Pinkerton, a member of a conspiracy can sometimes be responsible for another member's crimes committed within its scope and in furtherance of it, if reasonably foreseeable. Gordon's lawyer will seek to overturn the firearm conviction. The government will defend the denial of relief. The judges will also ask whether arguments being advanced now were properly presented earlier. This is not a new trial: the court must consider both the legal challenge and the procedural limits on reopening a conviction.
The Ninth Circuit considers a decades-old court order protecting unaccompanied immigrant children. Children in immigration custody may face a choice between agreeing to leave the country and pursuing a hearing or other protection. The concern is that a child may give up those options without understanding them. The order requires understandable rights notices before the departure option is presented. Depending on the child's circumstances, it requires a chance to call, or actual contact with an adult or legal-services organization. The government asked to end this oversight, citing changes in immigration law. The district judge refused, and also barred a new government advisal. The government is appealing. A key provision, Section 1252(f)(1), limits lower courts' power to grant class-wide injunctions restraining certain immigration operations. Another law, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, or TVPRA, sets procedures tailored to unaccompanied children. The government's lawyer will argue that the injunction directly interferes with operations protected by the first law. The children's lawyer will argue that it enforces separate child protections, with only a collateral, or indirect, effect on those operations. Rule 60(b)(5) allows an old order to be revisited if continued enforcement is no longer equitable; an injunction does not expire just because it is old.
The Second Circuit hears A.C.R. v. Mullin. Nine immigrant youth and two legal-services organizations sued after the government ended a deferred-action policy. The young people had Special Immigrant Juvenile classification, available to certain children who experienced parental abuse, neglect or abandonment. That classification offers a path to a green card, but visa backlogs can mean years of waiting. Deferred action temporarily postpones deportation; it does not grant permanent immigration status. Recipients may apply for work authorization. Under the 2022 policy, eligible young people were automatically considered for deferred action, and their approved classification counted as a strong positive factor. After the government rescinded the policy in 2025, a district judge paused that decision but did not fully restore the favorable standard. The young people are appealing that limit, not demanding automatic approval for everyone. Their lawyer will argue that the old policy must be restored as a whole, and that this appeal can still help people denied its protection. The government will argue that another policy issued in 2026 overtook the challenged decision, making the appeal moot, and that the old manual was not legally binding. Mootness asks whether there is still a live dispute the court can remedy. The Accardi doctrine generally requires agencies to follow their own existing procedures.
The Sixth Circuit hears AirPro Diagnostics v. Drew Technologies. AirPro supplied repair shops with tools and remote technicians to diagnose vehicles, using hardware from Drew and licensed diagnostic software. During unsuccessful merger talks in 2017, AirPro and Drew signed a confidentiality contract called the Mutual Party Agreement. AirPro alleges that information shared in those talks helped build competing products. Later, Drew's corporate group acquired AirPro's software supplier; new license terms restricted remote use. AirPro then lost access to future updates, though it could keep using software already downloaded. The district judge rejected AirPro's contract, tortious-interference and unfair-competition claims without a trial. AirPro's lawyer will argue that the confidentiality contract requires the defendants to prove independent development, and that disputed evidence belongs before a jury. The defendants' lawyer will argue that the technology was already known or independently developed, and that legitimate business concerns justified the licensing changes. Summary judgment means deciding without trial when no genuine dispute over outcome-changing facts requires one. Tortious interference concerns improper disruption of another's business relationships or expected business. You will also hear diversity jurisdiction: federal authority based on the parties' different state citizenship. Michigan law governs this confidentiality agreement.