Background
Qurran Thomas appealed his conviction for possession of ammunition by a convicted felon in violation of Section eighteen nine hundred twenty-two subsection g one. On appeal, he argued for the first time that the statute is unconstitutional under the test set forth in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruen and that it exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause. The government filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance.
The court’s reasoning
The court found that both of Thomas’s claims were foreclosed by existing Fifth Circuit precedent. The court cited United States versus Diaz and United States versus Alcantar as controlling authority. Because the claims were foreclosed, summary affirmance was warranted under Groendyke Transportation versus Davis.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the Fifth Circuit’s position that challenges to Section eighteen nine hundred twenty-two subsection g one based on the Bruen framework or Commerce Clause authority are foreclosed by prior case law.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download