United States v. Garrett, 650 F.Supp.3d 638

Defendant Detonya Garrett is charged in Counts III and IV under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (felon in possession) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime) and moved to declare those statutes facially unconstitutional post‑Bruen.
The Supreme Court in Heller recognized a core Second Amendment right for law‑abiding citizens but described prohibitions on felon possession as "presumptively lawful." McDonald reiterated that reassurance.
Bruen rejected the two‑step scrutiny framework and requires that when the Second Amendment’s text covers the conduct, the government justify the regulation by showing consistency with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Courts post‑Bruen have overwhelmingly rejected challenges to § 922(g)(1) and § 924(c)(1)(A); the Government relied in part on the Third Circuit’s historical analysis in Range, which concluded § 922(g)(1) is consistent with text and history.
The Seventh Circuit’s pre‑Bruen precedent (Skoien, Williams, Hatfield) upholds categorical prohibitions on firearm possession by certain classes, including felons; the district court found Bruen does not disturb that controlling circuit law.
Garrett alternatively sought appointment of an expert historian to litigate the historical-analogue question; the court denied that request as unnecessary given existing precedent and Bruen’s signals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) (felon‑in‑possession)	§922(g)(1) is consistent with Heller/McDonald and Bruen’s text‑and‑history test; felons historically excluded	§922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional under Bruen’s text‑and‑history framework	Denied — court holds Bruen does not undo Heller’s assurance; Seventh Circuit precedent and post‑Bruen cases uphold §922(g)(1)
Constitutionality of § 924(c)(1)(A) (firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking)	§924(c) targets non‑law‑abiding, unlawful conduct and is outside Second Amendment protection	§924(c) is facially unconstitutional under Bruen	Denied — courts find §924(c) regulates unprotected criminal use and survives Bruen
Request for appointment of expert historian	Government: unnecessary; existing precedent resolves historical question	Garrett: needs expert to show statutes are inconsistent with historical tradition	Denied — court declines to appoint expert given controlling precedent and prior analyses

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognized individual right to possess firearms for self‑defense but noted felon dispossession as presumptively lawful)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporated Heller and reiterated that longstanding prohibitions such as felon dispossession are not cast into doubt)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (rejected means‑end scrutiny; requires government to show regulation is consistent with historical tradition)
United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (upheld categorical disqualification for certain classes; recognized limits on Second Amendment)
United States v. Williams, 616 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2010) (upheld felony firearm possession ban)
Range v. Attorney General, 53 F.4th 262 (3d Cir. 2022) (extensive historical analysis concluding §922(g)(1) consistent with text and history)
Hatfield v. Barr, 925 F.3d 950 (7th Cir. 2019) (held nonviolent felons may be categorically dispossessed of firearms)