108 F.4th 786
9th Cir.2024Background
- The Ninth Circuit ordered en banc rehearing of United States v. Duarte, vacating the prior three-judge panel’s opinion.
- The case involves the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which permanently disarms individuals convicted of crimes punishable by more than one year in prison (i.e., felons).
- The underlying issue centers on whether this lifelong ban can be applied to nonviolent felons, given recent Second Amendment jurisprudence, especially post-NYSRPA v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi.
- Circuit courts nationwide are divided on whether history supports the permanent disarmament of nonviolent felons, causing substantial legal uncertainty.
- The Supreme Court recently decided Rahimi, concerning temporary disarmament orders for those found to pose a threat, but did not directly address Section 922(g)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Duarte's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of permanent ban on nonviolent felons under § 922(g)(1) | Duarte, with no violent history, argues the ban is unconstitutional absent evidence he poses a danger, citing lack of historical analogue for such broad disarmament | The government asserts § 922(g)(1) is consistent with tradition and remains valid regardless of violence | En banc review granted; prior panel's decision (for Duarte) vacated |
| Applicability of Rahimi to nonviolent felons | Rahimi’s rationale (temporary, threat-based disarmament) does not support permanent disarmament of nonviolent felons | Rahimi signals latitude for firearm restrictions, so § 922(g)(1) remains permissible | No final adjudication—issue left for en banc panel |
| Relevance of historical gun laws | Only those posing a demonstrated threat were historically disarmed | Disarmament has a broader historical scope; all felons can be barred from firearm possession | Panel vacated; full en banc will reconsider |
| Judicial approach to Second Amendment challenges | Prior panel applied Bruen faithfully; en banc rehearing reflects a pattern of restricting Second Amendment rights | Government welcomes additional review to resolve splits and align with SCOTUS guidance | Prior holding vacated pending en banc review |
Key Cases Cited
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (adopted a text-and-history approach for Second Amendment analysis)
- United States v. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. 1889 (2024) (upheld firearms ban for those subject to restraining orders, emphasizing threat-based, temporary disarmament)
- Range v. Att’y Gen., 69 F.4th 96 (3d Cir. 2023) (en banc) (held permanent ban for at least some nonviolent felons unconstitutional prior to GVR post-Rahimi)
- United States v. Jackson, 69 F.4th 495 (8th Cir. 2023) (upheld felon disarmament rule)