Morrissette v US - Lifetime prohibition for felons

[Euler]

This case was petitioned to the US Supreme Court on January 27, 2025. (docket)

Petition for certiorari said:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Is the lifetime ban on possession of firearms by all felons, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), unconstitutional on its face, because it is permanent and applies to all persons convicted of felonies, even those who are not violent?
And is it unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Morrissette, who has no violent convictions?
...
In March 2023, a police officer in Mobile, AL, stopped the car Mr. Morrissette was driving for traffic violations. During a search of the car, the officer found a loaded pistol between the driver's seat and center console, a tiny amount (4.6 grams) of marijuana, and a digital scale.

Mr. Morrissette was charged in a one-count federal indictment with knowing possession of the firearm as a felon. At the time he possessed the pistol seized during the traffic stop, he had Alabama felony convictions for first-degree marijuana possession, third-degree burglary, and first-degree criminal mischief.

Mr. Morrissette filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on grounds that § 922(g)(1) violated the Second Amendment on its face and as applied to him according to the framework established in Bruen. He argued the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him because his prior convictions were non-violent. The district court denied the motion, citing pre-Bruen Eleventh Circuit precedent. Mr. Morrissette pled guilty to the charge without a plea agreement and was sentenced to serve 57 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release.

Mr. Morrissette appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. On appeal, he again argued that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional on its face and as applied to him. The Eleventh Circuit denied his claims in an unpublished decision without oral argument. As it had done in [US v Dubois (11th Circuit, 2024)], the court hewed to its pre-Bruen precedent that forecloses Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(1) and further concluded that Rahimi did not alter the analysis because Rahimi did not involve § 922(g)(1) and did not comment on the precise issues raised by Mr. Morrissette.
...

In US v Dubois, the 11th Circuit concluded that 18 USC § 922(g)(1) (lifetime prohibition for felons) is presumptively constitutional. Dubois subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari. The Supreme Court GVR's his case with instructions to reconsider it in light of Rahimi.

On March 31, the Supreme Court GVR'd this case.

Order said:

... The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration in light of United States v. Rahimi, 602 U. S. 680 (2024).

The 11th Circuit already said Rahimi doesn't apply. It seems to me that the Supreme Court should have said to reconsider in light of Bruen, since that's what the 11th Circuit didn't do the first time.

FWIW in the founding era, burglary was a capital crime (not that any/many people were sentenced to death for it).

Edited March 31, 2025 at 09:35 PM by Euler

[Euler]

Oops

Edited August 1, 2025 at 10:48 PM by Euler