Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
A grand jury charged James Mike with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). Mike moved before trial to dismiss the charge.
Mike argued that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional as applied to him because the charge rested solely on the firearm having been manufactured outside Texas and later transported into the state, without allegations that he engaged in ongoing economic activity. He relied on the Fifth Circuit’s decision to rehear its § 922(g)(1) precedent en banc in United States v. Squire and on Justice Thomas’s concurrence in United States v. Hemani urging reconsideration of the statute under the Commerce Clause.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied Mike’s motion to dismiss. It held that the government’s allegation that the firearm was manufactured outside Texas and later found in Texas supplied the past connection to interstate commerce required by controlling Fifth Circuit precedent.
The court explained that United States v. Rawls and United States v. Alcantar uphold § 922(g)(1) as a valid exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause authority under materially similar circumstances. Although the Fifth Circuit had agreed to reconsider the issue en banc in Squire, the district court remained bound by existing circuit precedent until the en banc court issued a new decision.
Key Takeaways
- A firearm’s manufacture outside the state where it is later possessed establishes the interstate-commerce connection required under existing Fifth Circuit precedent.
- The court rejected the argument that § 922(g)(1) requires proof of ongoing economic activity by the defendant.
- A pending en banc rehearing does not free a district court from following still-controlling circuit precedent.
Why It Matters
The ruling confirms that Commerce Clause challenges to § 922(g)(1) remain foreclosed in the Southern District of Texas when the firearm previously crossed state lines, unless and until the Fifth Circuit changes its law en banc.
For defendants preserving similar constitutional arguments, the decision highlights the difference between a circuit court’s agreement to reconsider precedent and an actual ruling that overrules it.