Eibe Scott, proceeding pro se, appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon. Scott challenged the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) under the Second Amendment, arguing both facially and as-applied to his specific circumstances. He specifically contended that the statute was unconstitutional when applied to a felon possessing a firearm for self-defense and argued that the Eleventh Circuit's prior decision in United States v. Dubois was wrongly decided. The government moved for summary affirmance, asserting that Scott's legal position was clearly incorrect under existing binding precedent.
The court applied the prior-panel-precedent rule, which mandates that a panel cannot overrule or undermine a prior panel's holding unless the Supreme Court or the court sitting en banc has done so. The Eleventh Circuit had previously held in United States v. Rozier that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is constitutional under the Second Amendment, even if a felon possesses a firearm purely for self-defense. The court noted that while the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen changed the analytical framework for Second Amendment cases, it did not abrogate Rozier. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's subsequent decision in United States v. Rahimi, which upheld a different subsection of the felon-in-possession statute, also relied on Heller and did not abrogate Rozier. In Dubois II, the Eleventh Circuit explicitly reaffirmed that neither Bruen nor Rahimi had abrogated Rozier. The court emphasized that Scott's as-applied challenge is foreclosed by Rozier, which held that a felon's purpose for possessing a firearm and the location of the firearm were immaterial because felons as a class could be excluded from firearm possession. The court stated, 'nothing in [Heller] should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons.' Consequently, the court found the government's position clearly correct as a matter of law and granted summary affirmance.
Scott's conviction stands affirmed without further proceedings or remand. The decision reinforces the binding nature of the Eleventh Circuit's Rozier precedent regarding felon-in-possession statutes, signaling that lower courts in the circuit cannot reconsider the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) until the Supreme Court provides clearer instruction or the Eleventh Circuit sits en banc to overrule Rozier. No factual development is required for as-applied challenges that rely on the same legal theory previously rejected in Rozier.