Supreme Court Declines to Hear Second Amendment Challenge to Federal Gun Law
The Supreme Court has chosen not to address a challenge to a federal law that forbids felons from owning firearms. The case was brought by Lorenzo Garod Pierre, but instead of arranging oral argument, the court accepted the petition and promptly overturned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruling that Pierre was contesting on October 21. No explanation was given by the Supreme Court for its decision, and no justices dissented.
Supreme Court's Directives
The Supreme Court instructed the 11th Circuit to reassess its ruling in Pierre's case, taking into account United States v. Rahimi. This was a ruling made by the high court in June, which the federal government stated "clarified the methodology for determining whether a firearms regulation complies with the Second Amendment."
In the Rahimi case, the justices upheld Section 922 (g)(8) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. This is a federal law that prevents individuals under domestic violence-related restraining orders from possessing firearms. They determined that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not violated when a person is disarmed after a court has deemed them to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another.
Details of Pierre's Case
Pierre was charged in July 2022 with violating Section 922(g)(1) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code for knowingly possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony. The details of the prior felony conviction were not provided in the court documents.
Pierre requested the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to dismiss the felony-level indictment, arguing that it was "unconstitutional in light of" New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. In the Bruen case, the Supreme Court ruled that firearms restrictions must have a historical analogue and that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms in public for self-defense.
A magistrate judge submitted a report recommending the motion to dismiss be denied. Pierre objected, but the district court refused to dismiss the charge, stating that previous 11th Circuit rulings "squarely foreclosed" the constitutional challenge and were not undermined by the Bruen precedent.
Appeal and Arguments
Pierre appealed to the 11th Circuit, arguing that his conviction "as applied" violated the Second Amendment. In an as-applied challenge, a litigant argues that a statute or regulation is unconstitutional in the context of a specific case.
On March 12, the 11th Circuit upheld the district court in a two-page decision, stating that the circuit court's previous rulings were binding in the case.
Pierre claimed in his petition that, since the Bruen decision, federal courts of appeals have been divided on whether a "defendant may mount a challenge that his individual circumstances do not supply a basis, consistent with the Second Amendment, for stripping the right" to possess firearms.
The 11th Circuit holds that felons are "categorically 'disqualified' from exercising their Second Amendment right," but the Seventh and Ninth circuits allow defendants to file as-applied challenges to charges under Section 922(g)(1). Pierre's petition states that the Supreme Court should review the case to resolve the circuit split.
Views of the U.S. Solicitor General
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued in a brief on September 16 that the Supreme Court should accept the petition and direct the case back to the 11th Circuit for review in light of the Rahimi decision.
Prelogar stated that the Rahimi decision includes the appropriate legal standard for evaluating the Pierre case because it "clarified the methodology for determining whether a firearms regulation complies with the Second Amendment."
As the Supreme Court overturned judgments in five separate challenges to Section 922(g)(1) in July and sent those cases back to circuit courts for review in light of Rahimi, Prelogar argued that "consistent with that practice, the Court should grant the petition ... in this case, vacate the court of appeals’ judgment, and remand for further consideration in light of Rahimi."
Attempts were made to contact Pierre’s attorney, Brian Taylor Goldman of Holwell, Shuster, and Goldberg in New York City, and the U.S. Department of Justice for comment, but no responses had been received at the time of publication.
Bottom Line
The Supreme Court's decision to sidestep this case raises questions about the interpretation and application of the Second Amendment, particularly in relation to individuals with felony convictions. The differing approaches of various circuit courts highlight the complexity and ongoing debate surrounding this issue. What are your thoughts on this matter? Feel free to share this article with your friends and discuss it further. Remember, you can sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is available every day at 6pm.
