139 F.4th 475
5th Cir.2025Background
- Marcus Delars Branson was convicted of bank robbery in Texas in 2018 and subsequently prohibited from possessing firearms as a condition of supervised release.
- In March 2023, a probation officer found two firearms in Branson’s apartment before his supervised release ended.
- Branson was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for possession of a firearm after a felony conviction.
- He moved to dismiss the indictment on Second Amendment and other constitutional grounds; the district court denied dismissal.
- Branson pleaded guilty, received a prison sentence, and now appeals his conviction and sentence, raising several constitutional challenges to § 922(g)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Branson's Argument | United States' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Second Amendment (Facial Challenge) | § 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. | Precedent upholds the statute's constitutionality. | Argument foreclosed by circuit precedent. |
| Second Amendment (As-Applied) | Statute unconstitutional as applied to his conviction for bank robbery. | Similar theft convictions previously upheld. | Argument foreclosed; bank robbery within theft felonies. |
| Commerce Clause | Statute exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause. | Prior circuit decisions reject this argument. | Argument foreclosed by existing precedent. |
| Equal Protection (5th Amendment) | Statute violates equal protection component of Due Process Clause. | Court has previously rejected this equal protection claim. | Argument foreclosed by precedent. |
| Vagueness (Due Process) | Statute is unconstitutionally vague; post-Diaz uncertainty created notice issues. | Statute clearly defines prohibited conduct; fair notice provided. | Challenge fails; statute not vague as applied to Branson. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458 (5th Cir. 2024) (upholds § 922(g)(1) against Second Amendment challenges)
- United States v. Schnur, 132 F.4th 863 (5th Cir. 2025) (applies Diaz to theft-related felony convictions)
- United States v. Clark, 582 F.3d 607 (5th Cir. 2009) (vagueness challenges must be examined in light of case facts)
- Beckles v. United States, 580 U.S. 256 (2017) (vagueness analysis under the Due Process Clause)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239 (2012) (standards for vagueness under due process)
- Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) (vagueness doctrine requires clear statutory boundaries)
- United States v. Nat’l Dairy Prods. Corp., 372 U.S. 29 (1963) (fair notice standard for criminal statutes)
- Posters 'N' Things, Ltd. v. United States, 511 U.S. 513 (1994) (void for vagueness requires clear definition of offense)