Patrick Atkinson v. Merrick B. Garland, 70 F.4th 1018

Background

Plaintiff Patrick Atkinson (convicted in 1998 of felony mail fraud) sued under 18 U.S.C. § 925A to challenge the constitutionality of the federal felon-in-possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
The district court dismissed the suit before the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen; it relied on Seventh Circuit precedent that applied a two-step (means-end) test and rejected similar challenges.
Bruen replaced the means-end approach with a text-and-history test: when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers regulated conduct, the government must show the law is consistent with historical tradition.
The Seventh Circuit majority concluded the parties’ briefing lacked the detailed historical analysis Bruen requires, vacated the dismissal, and remanded for the district court to conduct the Bruen text-and-history inquiry in the first instance.
The opinion lists focused historical questions for the remand (e.g., scope of historical disarmament of criminals, whether analogues exist, whether history supports categorical disarmament vs individualized assessments).
Judge Wood dissented: he would have resolved the case now and upheld § 922(g)(1), reasoning that historical tradition supports categorical disarmament of dangerous classes (including felons).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to Atkinson	Atkinson: history supports disarming only "dangerous" or violent felons or requires individualized dangerousness determinations	Government: felon-in-possession laws are "presumptively lawful" and constitutional (Heller/McDonald dicta)	Vacated dismissal and REMANDED for Bruen text-and-history analysis; court declined to decide merits now
Whether Bruen’s text-and-history framework controls and requires new historical analysis	Atkinson: Bruen requires the court to test § 922(g)(1) against founding-era and relevant historical analogues	Government: urges reliance on pre-Bruen precedent and Heller/McDonald language to avoid Bruen analysis	Court: Bruen controls; lower courts must apply text-and-history test and government bears burden of showing historical tradition supports the regulation
Whether the Second Amendment’s text excludes felons (i.e., whether felons are part of "the people")	Atkinson: argues history permits narrower exclusions and/or individualized inquiry	Government: contends felons fall outside the protected class or are presumptively disqualified	Court: left unresolved on appeal — requires fuller briefing/remand for historical and textual analysis
Whether historical analogues support categorical prohibitions (versus individualized/specific-offense rules)	Atkinson: history favors disarming groups for political dangerousness but not necessarily permanent, categorical bans on nonviolent felons	Government: points to historical penalties and civic disabilities for felons as relevant analogues	Court: remanded — directed district court to evaluate whether historical practices and analogues form a tradition adequate to justify § 922(g)(1)

Key Cases Cited

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognizing an individual right to bear arms while noting the right is not unlimited and identifying longstanding prohibitions, including felon disarmament)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (announcing text-and-history test and requiring government to show historical tradition for modern regulations)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporating Second Amendment against the states and repeating Heller’s assurances)
Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019) (upholding § 922(g)(1) under pre-Bruen precedent; found historical record inconclusive)
Hatfield v. Barr, 925 F.3d 950 (7th Cir. 2019) (similar Seventh Circuit treatment upholding felon-dispossession restrictions before Bruen)
Ezell v. City of Chicago, 846 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2017) (discussing two-step test used in prior Seventh Circuit precedent)
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (historical test for the sorts of weapons protected by the Second Amendment)
Small v. United States, 544 U.S. 385 (2005) (interpreting the scope of convictions that trigger firearms disabilities)
United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (upholding another categorical firearms restriction under pre-Bruen analysis)
United States v. Meza-Rodriguez, 798 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2015) (addressing who qualifies as "the people" under the Second Amendment)