“Reaffirming Rozier” – The Eleventh Circuit Declares that Bruen and Rahimi Do Not Displace the Federal Felon-in-Possession Ban (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1))

1. Introduction

The decision in United States v. Lorenzo Garod Pierre, No. 23-11604 (11th Cir. June 20 2025) is the culmination of a complex back-and-forth between the Eleventh Circuit and the Supreme Court over the continued vitality of United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 768 (11th Cir. 2010). The appellant, Lorenzo Pierre, challenged his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) – the federal felon-in-possession statute – contending that recent Supreme Court Second-Amendment jurisprudence (N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 2022, and United States v. Rahimi, 2024) rendered § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to him.

After multiple remands triggered by Supreme Court grants, vacaturs, and remands (GVR orders) in both Pierre and its companion case United States v. Dubois, the Eleventh Circuit has now issued a definitive statement: § 922(g)(1) remains constitutional in all applications within the Eleventh Circuit, and Bruen/Rahimi have not undermined that holding. This commentary dissects the judgment, the precedents that shaped it, and the ruling’s impact on Second-Amendment litigation.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court (Newsom, Abudu, Anderson, JJ.) affirmed Pierre’s felon-in-possession conviction.
It held that the panel was bound by circuit precedent (Rozier) reaffirmed in Dubois II (2025), which in turn held that neither Bruen nor Rahimi abrogated Rozier.
Consequently, as-applied challenges by felons seeking individualized determinations of dangerousness cannot proceed in the Eleventh Circuit absent Supreme Court or en banc intervention.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
- Recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms but declared felon-disarmament laws “presumptively lawful.”
United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 768 (11th Cir. 2010)
- Held § 922(g)(1) constitutional “under any and all circumstances,” relying on Heller.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)
- Struck down New York’s “proper cause” licensing scheme and adopted a historical-tradition test for gun regulations, but did not address felons.
United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024)
- Upheld § 922(g)(8) (domestic-violence restraining orders) and clarified that historical analogues need not be “dead ringers.”
- Reiterated that felon-disarmament laws are “presumptively lawful.”
United States v. Dubois
- Dubois I, 94 F.4th 1284 (11th Cir. 2024) – First reaffirmation of Rozier post-Bruen.
- Dubois II, ___ F.4th ___, 2025 WL 1553843 (11th Cir. 2025) – Reaffirmation after Supreme Court GVR in light of Rahimi.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The panel’s reasoning rests on the Eleventh Circuit’s “prior-panel-precedent rule.” Under this rule, a published panel decision is binding on all subsequent panels unless and until it is overruled by (a) the Supreme Court or (b) the Eleventh Circuit sitting en banc.

Key steps:

Authority Hierarchy.
- Rozier (2010) is published, precedential, and directly on point.
- The Supreme Court has not expressly overruled § 922(g)(1) in any subsequent case, including Bruen or Rahimi.
Abrogation Analysis.
- A Supreme Court decision can implicitly abrogate circuit precedent, but only when “clearly inconsistent.”
- The Court found Bruen consistent with Heller—the very case on which Rozier relies—so no clear inconsistency exists.
- Rahimi expressly endorsed the “presumptively lawful” language regarding felon disarmament, further buttressing Rozier.
Application to Pierre.
- Pierre is a convicted felon.
- Rozier forecloses both facial and as-applied challenges brought by felons to § 922(g)(1).
- The panel therefore “cannot entertain Pierre’s request for an individualized determination.”

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

The ruling has several significant consequences:

Within the Eleventh Circuit. District courts must summarily deny Second-Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(1) brought by felons, absent Supreme Court intervention.
Inter-Circuit Tension. Other circuits (notably the Fifth and Third) have signaled openness to individualized assessments or historical-tradition analyses for felons (Diaz, Range). The Eleventh Circuit now sits firmly on the side of categorical bans, enlarging the circuit split.
Supreme Court Watch. The sharpened split, coupled with the Supreme Court’s repeated GVRs, increases the likelihood the Court may soon take a felon-specific case to clarify the scope of the Second Amendment.
Trial Strategy. Defense counsel in the Eleventh Circuit will likely pivot from constitutional arguments to factual or statutory defenses, as § 922(g)(1) challenges are effectively foreclosed.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

GVR (Grant, Vacate, and Remand): The Supreme Court’s shorthand order: it grants certiorari, vacates the lower-court judgment, and remands for reconsideration in light of a new Supreme Court decision.
Prior-Panel-Precedent Rule: An Eleventh-Circuit doctrine mandating that once a published panel decision resolves an issue, subsequent panels are bound unless overruled by the Supreme Court or an en banc court.
“Presumptively Lawful”: A phrase from Heller indicating certain long-standing firearm restrictions (e.g., for felons, mentally ill) are assumed constitutional unless and until the Supreme Court specifies otherwise.
As-Applied vs. Facial Challenge: A facial challenge attacks a statute in all its applications; an as-applied challenge attacks its application to a particular person or circumstance. Pierre attempted the latter.
Historical-Tradition Test: Under Bruen, courts ask whether a firearm regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Exact twins are not required; sufficiently analogous precedents suffice, per Rahimi.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Pierre cements, for the time being, a bright-line rule in the Eleventh Circuit: felons remain categorically barred from firearm possession, and neither Bruen nor Rahimi disturbs that conclusion. The panel’s fidelity to the prior-panel-precedent rule underscores the hierarchical nature of American judicial review; lower courts cannot anticipate Supreme Court overrulings.

Although the decision technically breaks no new doctrinal ground, its practical effect is profound: it consolidates a direct circuit split on the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection for felons. Litigants, scholars, and policymakers now await clearer guidance from the Supreme Court. Until then, within Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, Rozier – now thrice reaffirmed – remains the settled law.