Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Nacorian Lee Taylor was convicted in the Northern District of Texas of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and sentenced to 84 months in prison. This statute prohibits any person convicted of a felony from possessing a firearm in or affecting interstate commerce.
Taylor appealed his conviction, arguing that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment on its face and as applied to him under the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). He also challenged the statute’s constitutionality under the Commerce Clause, contending that the statute requires more than a firearm’s past movement in interstate commerce to satisfy the “in or affecting commerce” element, or alternatively exceeds Congress’s regulatory authority.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit granted summary affirmance, rejecting all of Taylor’s arguments as foreclosed by prior circuit precedent. The court held that Taylor’s facial challenge to § 922(g)(1) under Bruen is foreclosed by United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2822 (2025). Similarly, his as-applied challenge is foreclosed by United States v. Schnur, 132 F.4th 863 (5th Cir. 2025), and United States v. Bullock, 123 F.4th 183 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 146 S. Ct. 255 (2025).
The court also rejected Taylor’s Commerce Clause arguments as foreclosed by established precedent, specifically United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143 (5th Cir. 2013), and United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 1996). The district court’s judgment was affirmed in full.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth Circuit continues to uphold § 922(g)(1) felon-in-possession restrictions against Second Amendment challenges raised under the Bruen framework.
- Both facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to § 922(g)(1) are foreclosed by controlling Fifth Circuit precedent, preventing relitigation of settled legal questions.
- Commerce Clause arguments regarding the interstate commerce element of § 922(g)(1) remain foreclosed and do not create additional limitations on the statute’s application.
- Summary affirmance is appropriate where a defendant’s arguments are entirely foreclosed by binding precedent.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, which established a new test for Second Amendment challenges based on historical tradition, does not invalidate long-standing restrictions on firearm possession by convicted felons. The Fifth Circuit’s consistent application of its precedent prevents defendants from relitigating constitutional questions that have already been resolved by the circuit, conserving judicial resources and maintaining doctrinal stability.
For practitioners, the decision underscores that § 922(g)(1) challenges in the Fifth Circuit are effectively exhausted after Diaz, Schnur, and Bullock, making such arguments foreclosed as a matter of law and unlikely to succeed on appeal. This has significant implications for federal criminal defendants convicted under this statute and for federal prosecutors’ confidence in securing convictions under this provision.