US v Cockerham - Felony prohibition

[Euler]

On February 27, the US filed a petition for certiorari. (docket)

Petition for certiorari said:

...
1. Respondent has a previous felony conviction under Mississippi law for failure to pay child support. ...

A search of respondent's car uncovered a loaded handgun under the driver's seat and another loaded handgun in the glove compartment.

2. A federal grand jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi indicted respondent for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) .... ... Respondent filed two motions to dismiss the indictment, first arguing that Section 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment on its face and then that it violates the Second Amendment as applied to him. ... The court denied both motions. ...

Respondent then pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that preserved his right to appeal. ...

3. A divided panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded. ...

The court of appeals held that Section 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent. ... The court explained that, under its precedent, Section 922(g)(1)'s constitutionality as applied to a given predicate crime depends on how conduct analogous to the predicate crime was punished at the founding. ... The court concluded that the failure to pay child support is analogous to failure to pay a debt. ... Because founding-era debtors "were released from prison once their debts were paid," and because respondent "was no longer delinquent and had fully paid the child support debt" by the time he was found in possession of a firearm, the court determined that Section 922(g)(1)'s "lifetime ban on possession of a firearm" could not constitutionally be applied to him. ...
...

Cockerham also had lots of drugs when apprehended, but he only contested the firearm charge (and subsequent conviction). The US seeks to reinstate the firearm conviction.

Edited March 4, 2026 at 07:54 AM by Euler

[Euler]

On March 16, Cockerham asked for an extension to respond.

[Euler]

On March 17, the Court granted the extension to respond to April 29.

On April 29, Cockerham met the deadline to respond.

[Euler]

Petition denied ...


... which kind of means Cockerham wins.

The 5th Circuit precedent is now that failure to pay child support is not justification to suspend someone's 2A rights. Without a Supreme Court opinion, it has not been prohibited anywhere else as a justification to suspend someone's 2A rights.

Meanwhile, he's still in prison for all the drugs he had, so he'll be prohibited from owning firearms, anyway.