125 F.4th 204
5th Cir.2024Background
- Litsson Perez-Gallan was indicted for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii), which bars firearm possession by those subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders.
- When arrested in Texas, Perez-Gallan was subject to a Kentucky state court order stemming from a domestic violence incident with his partner, restricting contact and firearm possession.
- The district court granted Perez-Gallan’s motion to dismiss, finding § 922(g)(8) facially unconstitutional based on Second Amendment grounds, before the Fifth Circuit affirmed under then-binding precedent (Rahimi 2023).
- The Supreme Court subsequently reversed Rahimi, holding § 922(g)(8)(C)(i) facially constitutional but not reaching (C)(ii), remanding this case for reconsideration in light of that decision.
- On remand, the Fifth Circuit addressed whether § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii) is facially unconstitutional after Rahimi 2024 and found it is not, reversing and remanding for consideration of any as-applied challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Perez-Gallan's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rahimi 2023 still controls as precedent for (C)(ii) | Rahimi 2023’s facial holding on (C)(ii) still binds | Rahimi 2024’s analysis overrules Rahimi 2023 | Rahimi 2024 eliminates Rahimi 2023’s precedential force for (C)(ii) |
| Whether § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii) is facially unconstitutional | (C)(ii) always violates Second Amendment | There are instances where it is constitutional | (C)(ii) is not unconstitutional in all applications |
| Required standard for facial challenge | Statute is unconstitutional absent individualized threat finding | Law must only be constitutional in some applications | Statute survives if constitutional in some cases |
| Validity of firearm prohibition based on protective orders without explicit danger finding | Only explicit danger findings are valid restrictions | Many qualifying orders imply actual threats, even without explicit findings | Orders under (C)(ii) can imply sufficient threat to justify firearm restriction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (sets standard for facial constitutional challenges: law must be invalid in all applications)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (establishes historical analogues approach for Second Amendment)
- United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024) (clarifies Bruen analysis and upholds § 922(g)(8)(C)(i) under Second Amendment)
- United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001) (analyzes application of § 922(g)(8), including (C)(ii))