Introduction

Harley v. Wilkinson (988 F.3d 766) is a significant appellate decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, delivered on February 22, 2021. The case revolves around Robert Timothy Harley, who challenged the constitutionality of the lifetime firearm possession prohibition imposed on him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) following his 1993 conviction for misdemeanor assault and battery against a family member. Harley contended that his prolonged period of good behavior over 27 years since the conviction should render the firearm prohibition unconstitutional as applied to him.

Summary of the Judgment

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the Acting Attorney General and the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, upholding the constitutionality of Section 922(g)(9) as applied to Harley. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed this decision. The majority opinion, authored by Judge Keenan and joined by Judge Wynn, concurred with the lower court’s conclusion that the firearm prohibition satisfies intermediate scrutiny under the Second Amendment. The court determined that the statute reasonably fits the governmental objective of protecting families from gun violence perpetrated by convicted domestic abusers, without accommodating exceptions based on individual behavior or the passage of time since the conviction.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court extensively referenced prior cases to substantiate its reasoning:

• United States v. Staten, 666 F.3d 154 (4th Cir. 2011): Established that Section 922(g)(9) survives intermediate scrutiny by aligning with substantial governmental interests in reducing domestic gun violence.
• United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673 (4th Cir. 2010): Adopted a two-prong approach for as-applied Second Amendment challenges, focusing first on whether the conduct falls within the Second Amendment's scope and second on constitutional scrutiny.
• United States v. Hosford, 843 F.3d 161 (4th Cir. 2016): Highlighted limitations on individually tailored exceptions in firearm possession prohibitions.
• United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71 (2002): Affirmed that courts lack jurisdiction to grant judicial review absent an actual decision by the Attorney General regarding firearm possession disabilities.
• United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. 157 (2014): Interpreted "domestic violence" under §922(g)(9) to include non-violent offenses, thereby broadening the statute's scope.
• Other relevant cases within various circuits that upheld §922(g)(9) under intermediate scrutiny.

Legal Reasoning

The court employed a structured two-prong framework for as-applied Second Amendment challenges:

1. Scope of Second Amendment Protection: Determined whether the challenged conduct falls within the Second Amendment's purview.
2. Means-End Analysis: Applied intermediate scrutiny to assess whether the statute reasonably fits the governmental objective.

In Harley's case, the court assumed, without deciding, that domestic violence misdemeanants retain some Second Amendment protection. It then proceeded to evaluate whether §922(g)(9) reasonably furthered the substantial governmental interest in preventing domestic gun violence. The court found that the statute, despite being potentially overinclusive, provided a reasonable fit by restricting firearm possession of individuals convicted of misdemeanors involving physical force against family members.

The court explicitly declined to consider post-conviction rehabilitation or the passage of time as factors that could exempt an individual from the prohibition, emphasizing that such exceptions were not embedded within the statutory text. The dissenting opinion, however, contested this rigidity, arguing for the consideration of individual circumstances in constitutional analyses.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the stringent application of firearm possession prohibitions under §922(g)(9), aligning with the prevailing stance across sister circuits that prioritize statutory language and governmental objectives over individual rehabilitative factors. The decision underscores that courts will not infer exceptions based on an individual's post-conviction behavior or the time elapsed since conviction, delegating such policy considerations exclusively to Congress. This affirmation limits the potential for individuals to seek relief from firearm prohibitions through judicial interpretation, thereby maintaining a uniform enforcement of laws aimed at reducing domestic gun violence.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Intermediate Scrutiny: A standard of judicial review used to evaluate the constitutionality of laws that affect fundamental rights. Under intermediate scrutiny, the law must serve an important government interest and must be substantially related to achieving that interest.

As-Applied Challenge: A legal argument that a law, while generally permissible, should not apply in a specific individual's circumstances due to unique factors that render its application unjust or unconstitutional.

Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence: Specifically defined under 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(33)(A), it refers to state-law misdemeanors involving the use or attempted use of physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon against a family member.

Overinclusive Statute: A law that not only targets the intended group or behavior but also affects individuals or actions beyond its intended scope.

Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit's affirmation in Harley v. Wilkinson solidifies the constitutional validity of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(9) as applied to individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses. By adhering to established precedents and emphasizing the statute's alignment with significant governmental interests in curbing domestic gun violence, the court rejected the notion of judicially inferred exceptions based on an individual's post-conviction conduct or time elapsed. This decision underscores the judiciary's role in upholding legislative frameworks designed to protect public safety, rather than integrating rehabilitative considerations into constitutional analyses. As a result, individuals in similar circumstances may find limited avenues to challenge firearm prohibitions under current legal standards, reinforcing a consistent and stringent approach to firearm regulation for domestic violence misdemeanants.