Congress’s Authority to Disarm Felons Upheld: Eleventh Circuit Reaffirms § 922(g)(1) Post-Rahimi Remand

1. Introduction

In United States v. André Michael Dubois (11th Cir. June 2, 2025), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals addressed whether the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in United States v. Rahimi overturned the longstanding circuit precedent in United States v. Rozier, which upheld 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)—the federal ban on firearm possession by convicted felons—as consistent with the Second Amendment.

Defendant‐Appellant André Michael Dubois, a recidivist felon, was convicted in the Northern District of Georgia for:

Attempting to ship firearms out of the United States (18 U.S.C. § 554);
Delivering firearms to a carrier without notice (18 U.S.C. § 922(e)); and
Possessing a firearm as a felon (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).

While his appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022) and Rahimi (2024), which refined—and some feared enlarged—the test for evaluating Second Amendment challenges. Dubois argued that these decisions invalidated § 922(g)(1). The Eleventh Circuit, sitting “on remand” from the Supreme Court, disagreed and reinstated its prior opinion affirming Dubois’s convictions and sentence.

2. Summary of the Judgment

On remand, a unanimous panel held:

Prior-panel-precedent rule: Rozier (2010) remains binding absent a clear overruling by the Supreme Court or this court en banc.
Bruen and Rahimi: Neither decision “clearly abrogated” Rozier’s holding that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional.
Factual record: Dubois knowingly concealed and attempted to ship a loaded revolver, two pistols, and ammunition, all wrapped in foil and hidden in deep-fryers.
Outcome: The court “reinstate[d]” its prior opinion, rejecting Dubois’s Second Amendment challenge and affirming his 110-month prison sentence and $25,000 fine.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): Recognized an individual right to keep arms in the home but expressly stated that “nothing in [its] opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons.” (§ 627 n.26)
McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010): Incorporated the Second Amendment against the states and reaffirmed Heller’s assurance that felon-in-possession laws are “presumptively lawful.”
United States v. Rozier (11th Cir. 2010): Held § 922(g)(1) constitutional, emphasizing that felons are not “law-abiding, responsible citizens” entitled to Second Amendment protection.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022): Rejected means-end scrutiny for gun laws, adopting a “text and history” test, but did not disturb Heller’s list of “presumptively lawful” restrictions, including felon disarmament.
United States v. Rahimi (2024): Applied Bruen’s historical-analogue framework to § 922(g)(8) (domestic-violence‐restraining-order bar), reaffirming Heller’s statement that “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by ‘felons and the mentally ill’ are ‘presumptively lawful.’”

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The panel’s decision turned on two points:

Binding precedent: Under the “prior-panel-precedent rule,” Rozier controls unless a later decision is “clearly on point” and “clearly contrary.” Neither Bruen nor Rahimi mentioned or overturned Rozier’s core holding.
Second Amendment framework:
- Heller established that some categories—felons, the mentally ill—fall outside the Amendment’s “law-abiding, responsible” guarantee.
- Bruen preserved Heller’s “presumptively lawful” restrictions and did not disturb the felon-in-possession category.
- Rahimi reaffirmed Heller’s list and cautioned against re-writing gun-control history as if it were “locked in amber.” It upheld § 922(g)(8) by analogy to colonial surety and anti-dueling laws—reinforcing, not eroding, the rule that felons can be disarmed.

3.3 Potential Impact

This decision clarifies that:

Existing felony‐possession bans remain safe from Second Amendment attacks in the Eleventh Circuit.
Circuit precedent anchors gun jurisprudence: a Supreme Court decision must speak directly to a binding rule before it can be disregarded.
Future challenges to § 922(g)(1) must either persuade the Supreme Court to overturn Heller’s “presumptively lawful” language or demonstrate an unanticipated shift in controlling authority.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Second Amendment “Text-and-History” Test: First ask: “Does the Constitution’s text cover the conduct?” If yes, the government must show the regulation is consistent with historical analogues at the Founding.
Prior-Panel-Precedent Rule: A three-judge panel is bound by earlier Eleventh Circuit rulings unless the Supreme Court or the circuit court sitting en banc clearly overrules them.
Means-End (or “Strict”) Scrutiny: In other constitutional contexts, courts ask whether a law advances a “compelling” state interest and is “narrowly tailored.” Bruen rejected this for gun regulation but left intact Heller’s “presumptively lawful” list.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Dubois reaffirms that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)—the ban on firearm possession by felons—remains constitutional under the Second Amendment. The ruling underscores that Supreme Court precedents (Heller, McDonald, Bruen, Rahimi) continue to endorse felon-in-possession laws as “presumptively lawful” and that Eleventh Circuit precedent (Rozier) controls in the absence of direct Supreme Court reversal. In the broader legal landscape, Dubois maintains Congress’s authority to disarm convicted felons and clarifies the stability of gun-control jurisprudence amidst evolving Second Amendment doctrine.