Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Terrance J. Tardieff was convicted in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana of possessing a firearm after a felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal, Tardieff challenged the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1), arguing the statute was unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to him in light of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), which established a historical-tradition test for evaluating Second Amendment claims.
Tardieff conceded that his constitutional arguments were foreclosed by existing Fifth Circuit precedent. The Government responded by filing an unopposed motion for summary affirmance, or in the alternative, a motion for an extension of time to file a merits brief.
The Court’s Holding
A per curiam panel of Chief Judge Elrod and Judges Smith and Stewart granted the Government’s motion and summarily affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that Tardieff’s facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to § 922(g)(1) are foreclosed by circuit precedent, specifically United States v. Schnur, 132 F.4th 863, 870–71 (5th Cir. 2025), and United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471–72 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2822 (2025).
Finding summary disposition appropriate under Groendyke Transport, Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the court granted the summary affirmance motion and denied the Government’s alternative request for a briefing extension as moot.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth Circuit continues to uphold § 922(g)(1) against Bruen-based Second Amendment challenges, treating the issue as settled by Schnur and Diaz.
- The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Diaz (145 S. Ct. 2822 (2025)) reinforces the finality of the Fifth Circuit’s approach to felon-disarmament statutes post-Bruen.
- Defendants who concede their arguments are foreclosed by circuit precedent face summary affirmance without full merits briefing.
Why It Matters
This decision is a routine but telling marker of where the Fifth Circuit stands on one of the most litigated post-Bruen questions: whether the federal felon-in-possession prohibition survives the Supreme Court’s historical-tradition framework. The court’s willingness to resolve such challenges by summary affirmance signals that, absent a contrary Supreme Court ruling, § 922(g)(1) prosecutions will continue to hold in this circuit.
For defense practitioners, the case underscores that facial and as-applied Bruen challenges to § 922(g)(1) remain dead on arrival in the Fifth Circuit following Schnur and Diaz, and that raising them without new legal grounds risks expedited, unfavorable resolution.