USA v. Russell – Do It For The Caselaw

Holding: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to dismiss, holding that 18 U.S.C. Section 922(n) does not require an individualized assessment of dangerousness and that defendants cannot collaterally attack the validity of a predicate indictment.
Standard: Bruen historical tradition analysis
Vote: The panel unanimously concluded the case was suitable for decision without oral argument.
Practical effect: The ruling reinforces that individuals facing felony indictments are subject to federal firearms prohibitions regardless of the eventual outcome of the underlying state charges or the need for individualized dangerousness findings.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment for receiving a firearm while under felony indictment. The court held that federal law does not require an individualized assessment of dangerousness to disarm individuals facing felony charges.

Background

Cameron Lee Russell, Jr. challenged a district court order denying his motion to dismiss an indictment for one count of receiving a firearm while under felony indictment in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(n). Russell argued that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him because the underlying obstruction of justice charge was flawed and later dismissed.

The court’s reasoning

The court affirmed that the nation’s historical tradition permits legislatures to categorically disarm those deemed dangerous without an individualized determination. The court found that Congress’s judgment that those facing felony indictments pose a special risk of misusing firearms is consistent with historical tradition. Furthermore, the court held that federal gun laws focus on the fact of indictment rather than its reliability, and a defendant must clear their status before obtaining a firearm.

The nation’s historical tradition reveals that legislatures were permitted to categorically disarm those they deemed dangerous without having to perform an individualized determination of dangerousness as to each person in a class of prohibited persons.

United States v. Duarte, 137 F.4th 743, 760 (9th Cir. 2025)

What it means going forward

The ruling reinforces that individuals facing felony indictments are subject to federal firearms prohibitions regardless of the eventual outcome of the underlying state charges or the need for individualized dangerousness findings.