Affirmation of §922(g) Commerce Clause Jurisprudence and Due Process Standards for Supervised Release Pronouncements

Introduction

In United States v. Curtis Tyrone Johnson, the Eleventh Circuit confronted two principal questions on appeal: first, whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) — which prohibits possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon — violates the Commerce Clause; and second, whether the district court’s failure to orally pronounce thirteen standard conditions of supervised release in open court deprived the defendant of due process. Curtis Tyrone Johnson, after being convicted in the Middle District of Florida for firearms and controlled‐substances offenses, challenged both his conviction under § 922(g) and certain aspects of his sentence. The Eleventh Circuit – in a per curiam opinion authored March 19, 2025 – affirmed both the conviction and the supervised‐release conditions, applying binding panel precedent and plain‐error review.

Summary of the Judgment

The court’s decision rests on two holdings:

Commerce Clause Challenge to § 922(g): Johnson’s facial and as‐applied attacks on § 922(g) were foreclosed by prior Eleventh Circuit precedent holding that the “minimal nexus” between out‐of‐state manufacture of firearms (or ammunition) and interstate commerce satisfies constitutional requirements. Because Johnson conceded that the weapon and ammunition he possessed were manufactured outside Florida, his challenge was barred and his conviction under § 922(g) was affirmed.
Due Process and Supervised Release Conditions: Johnson argued that the district court erred by imposing thirteen standard, discretionary conditions of supervised release only in the written judgment, without orally pronouncing them during the sentencing hearing. Applying United States v. Hayden and plain‐error review, the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not err: it had informed Johnson, in open court, that he would “comply with the mandatory and standard conditions adopted by the [Middle District of Florida]” and the standard conditions were publicly available in the official judgment form. The court therefore affirmed the supervised‐release terms as consistent and properly adopted.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Commerce Clause and § 922(g):
- United States v. Longoria, 874 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2017) – upheld the facial constitutionality of § 922(g).
- United States v. Wright, 607 F.3d 708 (11th Cir. 2010) – confirmed the “minimal nexus” test for as‐applied Commerce Clause challenges.
- United States v. McAllister, 77 F.3d 387 (11th Cir. 1996) – rejected narrowing § 922(g) in light of United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) – established that Congress may regulate only activities that “substantially affect” interstate commerce, but recognized a minimal nexus test for weapons manufactured out of state.
- United States v. White, 837 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2016) & United States v. Kaley, 579 F.3d 1246 (11th Cir. 2009) – set forth the “prior panel precedent” rule and standard for when a Supreme Court case can overrule circuit precedent.
Due Process and Supervised Release Pronouncements:
- United States v. Rodriguez, 75 F.4th 1231 (11th Cir. 2023) – held that imposing conditions in a written judgment, without any oral pronouncement or reference to a list, violates due process.
- United States v. Hayden, 119 F.4th 832 (11th Cir. 2024) – clarified that referencing publicly available “standard conditions” in open court and inviting objections satisfies due process, and that the same conditions in the written judgment pose no conflict.

Legal Reasoning

1. Section 922(g) and the Prior‐Precedent Rule: The panel reiterated that challenges to § 922(g) must yield to binding Eleventh Circuit decisions unless overturned en banc or by the Supreme Court. Under this rule, neither Johnson’s facial challenge nor his as‐applied attack – premised solely on the absence of a nexus beyond the firearm’s out‐of‐state origin – could overcome settled circuit authority.

2. Plain‐Error Review: Because Johnson did not object in district court to either the constitutionality of § 922(g) or the oral pronouncement of supervised‐release conditions, the appellate court applied plain‐error review. The four prongs (error, obviousness, prejudice, and effect on judicial integrity) were not satisfied on either issue.

3. Due Process in Sentencing Pronouncements: Drawing on Rodriguez and Hayden, the court distinguished cases where no reference is made at sentencing from cases in which the judge: (a) expressly notifies the defendant that standard conditions apply; (b) identifies the source (Middle District form available online); and (c) solicits objections. In Johnson’s case, all three elements were met, so there was no discrepancy between oral pronouncement and written judgment.

Impact

Commerce Clause Litigation: Defendants will find it nearly impossible to revive Commerce Clause challenges to § 922(g) in the Eleventh Circuit unless the Supreme Court or an en banc panel explicitly dismantles the minimal‐nexus test.
Supervised Release Procedures: District courts in the Eleventh Circuit can satisfy due process by referencing standard conditions in open court via a publicly available form or administrative order and by inviting objections, rather than reading each condition verbatim.
Sentencing Practice: The opinion reinforces the importance of consistent sentencing practices, clear notice to defendants, and the interplay between written judgments and in‐court pronouncements.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Commerce Clause: Part of the U.S. Constitution giving Congress power to regulate commerce “among the several States.” The key question is whether possession of a weapon affects interstate commerce enough to justify federal regulation.
Minimal Nexus Test: A low threshold requiring only that the firearm or ammunition has, at some point, moved across state lines (e.g., because it was manufactured elsewhere).
Prior Panel Precedent Rule: A rule that federal circuits must follow their own published decisions unless and until those decisions are overturned by a higher authority.
Plain‐Error Standard: An appellate review standard for unpreserved errors. To succeed, a party must show a clear mistake that affected the outcome and undermines confidence in the proceedings.
Supervised Release Conditions: Terms imposed after imprisonment during which a defendant must comply with certain rules (e.g., drug testing, reporting). “Standard conditions” are model rules set out in the Sentencing Guidelines and adopted by local district courts.
Due Process in Sentencing: The Fifth Amendment guarantee that a defendant has notice of the full scope of punishment, including supervised release conditions, and an opportunity to object.

Conclusion

United States v. Johnson affirms the Eleventh Circuit’s commitment to two foundational principles: first, that § 922(g)’s “minimal nexus” approach to the Commerce Clause remains binding precedent; and second, that due process in pronouncing supervised release conditions can be satisfied through clear, in‐court reference to standard conditions and by inviting objections. The decision thereby cements the circuit’s firearms jurisprudence and clarifies sentencing procedure, ensuring uniform application of both constitutional and procedural safeguards.