322 F. Supp. 3d 885
S.D. Ill.2018Background
- In 1990 Hatfield submitted false Railroad Retirement Board forms, obtaining $1,627.73; he pled guilty to 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and was sentenced to three years probation and restitution, no prison time.
- Because § 1001 is punishable by up to five years, Hatfield is classified as a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which bars firearm possession.
- Hatfield brought an as-applied Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1), seeking the right to keep a firearm in his home for self-defense.
- The Government moved for summary judgment arguing felons are not protected by the Second Amendment and, alternatively, that § 922(g)(1) survives intermediate scrutiny as applied to Hatfield.
- The parties agreed facts are undisputed; the Court applied Seventh Circuit precedent requiring a two-step inquiry (scope of protection, then heightened scrutiny) and Ezell’s framing for severity-of-burden review.
- The Court found the historical record inconclusive at step one and held that under Ezell the Government must show an extremely strong public-interest justification and a close fit; it concluded the Government failed and granted Hatfield summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hatfield (a nonviolent felon who received no prison time) falls within the Second Amendment’s protection | Hatfield argues Heller’s presumption that the right belongs to “the people” includes him and that an as-applied challenge can succeed | Government argues felons are categorically outside Second Amendment protection and § 922(g)(1) is valid | The Court: historical record is inconclusive; government fails to show Hatfield is categorically excluded, so proceed to scrutiny |
| If within the Second Amendment, what level of scrutiny applies and whether § 922(g)(1) survives as-applied | Hatfield: Ezell requires an extremely strong justification and close fit for a ban affecting core self-defense; § 922(g)(1) fails as-applied | Government: intermediate scrutiny suffices; § 922(g)(1) serves the important interest of keeping guns from dangerous persons and warrants deference | The Court: applies Ezell (heightened than intermediate for core self-defense), finds government lacks an extremely strong justification and § 922(g)(1) is not a close fit as-applied to Hatfield; statute is unconstitutional as-applied |
| Relevance of the statutory relief mechanism (18 U.S.C. § 925(c)) to save § 922(g)(1) | Hatfield: § 925(c) is effectively unavailable because Congress has not funded it, so it cannot cure § 922(g)(1)’s overbreadth | Government: the existence of § 925(c) (and congressional judgment) justifies deference to the statutory scheme | The Court: § 925(c) is not operational due to lack of funding; it cannot rescue § 922(g)(1) in this as-applied challenge |
| Whether the Government must focus on Hatfield’s individual circumstances in an as-applied challenge | Hatfield: as-applied review requires attention to his particular class (nonviolent felons with no incarceration) | Government: justification may be expressed in aggregate terms about felons generally | The Court: rejects purely aggregate approach; defines the relevant class narrowly and assesses fit against that class |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense; lists presumptively lawful prohibitions including felon bans)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporated the Second Amendment against the states)
- United States v. Williams, 616 F.3d 685 (7th Cir.) (2010) (Heller’s reference to felon bans as “presumptively lawful” permits as-applied challenges)
- Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir.) (2011) (articulates framework: severe burdens on core self-defense require an extremely strong justification and close fit)
- United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir.) (2010) (applies intermediate scrutiny in felon-related Second Amendment contexts)
- United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71 (2002) (addresses § 925(c) administrative application and judicial review limits under the APA)
- Barrett v. United States, 423 U.S. 212 (1976) (describes § 922(g)(1)’s objective to keep firearms from potentially irresponsible persons)
- Small v. United States, 544 U.S. 385 (2005) (recognizes § 922(g)(1)’s role in preventing possession by untrustworthy individuals)
- Hamilton v. Pallozzi, 848 F.3d 614 (4th Cir.) (2017) (discusses felony labeling as reflecting grave misjudgment and maladjustment)