The federal government's most-used gun law is facing a constitutional challenge after a federal appeals court agreed to reconsider its foundation. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has voted to rehear the case of United States v. Squire, which could determine whether Congress exceeded its authority when it enacted the law making it a crime for convicted felons to possess firearms.
The case stems from an appeal by a convicted felon, Curtis Squire, who was charged after police found a handgun in his New Orleans home during a search warrant. Squire initially challenged the law as a Second Amendment issue, but the case has since evolved into a broader question: whether Congress had the constitutional authority to criminalize firearm possession by convicted felons. The appeals court's decision marks a significant shift in the case and the first major appellate response to a recent concurrence by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Thomas argued that the Commerce Clause, which has been used to justify the law, authorizes Congress only to regulate the buying and selling of goods and services that cross state lines, not activities like gun possession. He warned that an interpretation of the Commerce Clause that allows Congress to regulate firearm possession based on the fact that the gun once moved in interstate commerce could convert Congress' limited authority into a general police power.
The Fifth Circuit's decision to rehear Squire suggests that at least some judges agree that the question of the law's constitutionality warrants fresh consideration. However, the move sharply divided the court, with some judges warning of far-reaching consequences for federal law if the law is struck down. A ruling could potentially affect millions of Americans and the balance between federal authority and constitutional limits.
The case began as a narrow Second Amendment dispute but has evolved into a broader challenge to Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. If the Fifth Circuit finds that the law exceeds Congress' authority, it could have significant implications for federal law and the scope of federal criminal law. A ruling could reshape Second Amendment jurisprudence and longstanding Commerce Clause precedent, leading to untold consequences for federal regulation.
The firearm in question was never tied to a shooting, and related state charges were dropped. However, federal prosecutors charged Squire under the statute due to his extensive criminal history, which included convictions for drug trafficking, firearm offenses, burglary, obstruction of justice, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. Squire argued that the statute violated the Second Amendment as applied to him under the Supreme Court's decisions in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi.
A three-judge Fifth Circuit panel initially rejected Squire's argument in June, holding that Congress may constitutionally prohibit individuals convicted of dangerous crimes, including drug trafficking, from possessing firearms in their homes. However, the panel emphasized that its ruling was narrow and did not decide whether people convicted of non-dangerous offenses could be permanently disarmed.
