United States v. Cockerham, 5:25-cr-00001

Defendant Derrick Lakeith Cockerham was indicted for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and for possession with intent to distribute controlled substances.
His predicate felony conviction relevant to the § 922(g)(1) charge is a 2017 Mississippi conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
Cockerham moved to dismiss the firearm charge, arguing several constitutional grounds: Second Amendment (facial and as-applied), Equal Protection, Due Process, vagueness, and Commerce Clause.
The case was decided prior to trial, considering only issues of law, following Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b).
Court's analysis focused both on the historical basis for disarming felons and on the continued viability of § 922(g)(1) under relevant Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent.

Issue	Cockerham's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Facial Challenge to § 922(g)(1)	Statute is unconstitutional on its face under Second Amendment	Fifth Circuit precedent forecloses facial challenge	Facial challenge denied
As-Applied Challenge	No historical analogue justifying disarmament for his predicate drug crime	Founding laws on contraband/death/forfeiture suffice as historical analogue	As-applied challenge denied
Equal Protection	Statute violates Equal Protection by relying on state law, should face strict scrutiny	Prior controlling Fifth Circuit precedent (Darrington) applies	Equal protection challenge denied
Due Process	Strips rights automatically, insufficient process, no adequate restoration mechanism	Proper process is provided by jury trial, some restoration mechanisms exist	Due process challenge denied
Vagueness	Statute fails to clearly notify which felons are prohibited	Statute is clear; Cockerham’s conduct clearly prohibited	Vagueness challenge denied
Commerce Clause	Statute exceeds congressional authority	Fifth Circuit consistently upholds statute under Commerce Clause	Commerce Clause challenge denied

United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (Facial constitutional challenge standard)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (Second Amendment is not unlimited)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (Historical tradition test for gun regulations)
Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 (Discussed dangers of guns and drugs)
United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (Government can disarm credible threats; compared process requirements)
Connecticut Dep’t of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (Due process not required for facts irrelevant to legal scheme)
Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (Strong presumption favoring Act of Congress)
United States v. Nat’l Dairy Prods. Corp., 372 U.S. 29 (Statutes not void for vagueness due to difficulty in marginal cases)