Eleventh Circuit Reaffirms § 922(g)(1) Felon-in-Possession Ban After Bruen and Rahimi

Introduction

United States v. Kenya Miguel Johnson, No. 23-10642 (11th Cir. June 16, 2025) is an unpublished but significant decision in which the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit summarily affirmed the conviction and sentence of Kenya Johnson for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)—the federal “felon-in-possession” statute. Johnson mounted two constitutional attacks:

A Second Amendment challenge, asserting that New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022) and United States v. Rahimi (2024) invalidated § 922(g)(1) as applied to him.
A Commerce Clause challenge, contending that Congress lacked authority to regulate his purely intrastate firearm possession.

The Eleventh Circuit rejected both arguments, relying on its prior precedents— principally United States v. Rozier (2010) and United States v. McAllister (1996)—and clarified that Bruen and Rahimi do not “demolish” those earlier decisions. The court therefore granted the government’s motion for summary affirmance.

Summary of the Judgment

1. Summary Affirmance Standard – Applying the rule from Groendyke Transportation, Inc. v. Davis (5th Cir. 1969), the panel held that the government’s position was “clearly right as a matter of law,” making full briefing unnecessary.
2. Second Amendment Holding – The panel reiterated that § 922(g)(1) remains constitutional because felons fall outside the historical scope of the Second Amendment right, a proposition settled in Rozier and fortified by the recent decision in United States v. Dubois (11th Cir. 2025).
3. Commerce Clause Holding – The court reaffirmed that the statute’s jurisdictional element—requiring the firearm to have moved in interstate commerce—satisfies constitutional scrutiny under the “minimal nexus” test announced in McAllister and Wright.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
Recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms but declared felon-in-possession laws “longstanding” and “presumptively lawful.” Heller’s dicta forms the cornerstone of later felon-in-possession jurisprudence.
United States v. Rozier (11th Cir. 2010)
Held that § 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment even when the defendant possessed a firearm for self-defense. Johnson’s case re-affirms Rozier as binding precedent.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022)
Rejected the “means-end scrutiny” test and mandated a historical inquiry. Even so, the Supreme Court repeatedly referenced “law-abiding citizens,” implying continued validity of restrictions on felons.
United States v. Rahimi (2024)
Upheld § 922(g)(8) (firearm restriction for subjects of domestic-violence restraining orders) and emphasized that Bruen does not require a “historical twin.” Rahimi reiterated that felon dispossession laws are presumptively lawful.
United States v. Dubois (11th Cir. 2025)
Concluded that neither Bruen nor Rahimi undermined Rozier; instead, they reinforce it. Johnson’s panel relied heavily on Dubois to foreclose his argument.
United States v. McAllister (11th Cir. 1996) & United States v. Scott (11th Cir. 2001)
Upheld § 922(g)’s jurisdictional element under the Commerce Clause. Johnson conceded these cases bar his challenge.

Legal Reasoning

Prior-Panel-Precedent Rule
Under Eleventh Circuit practice (and nationwide appellate protocol), a later panel must follow an earlier published decision unless the Supreme Court or the Eleventh Circuit en banc overrules it. Because neither happened, Rozier and McAllister control.
Step-One Failure Under Bruen
The court accepted the government’s view that felons are categorically excluded from “the people” whose conduct is protected by the Second Amendment—a conclusion sufficient to end the analysis at step one, before any historical analogues are even examined.
Commerce Clause “Minimal Nexus” Test
By requiring the firearm to have crossed state lines at some point, § 922(g)(1) contains an express jurisdictional hook. Under Wright, that is enough to make the statute a valid exercise of Congress’s authority over interstate commerce.
Summary Disposition Appropriateness
Because Johnson’s claims are squarely foreclosed, the panel used the fast-track mechanism of summary affirmance; no oral argument or full briefing was needed.

Impact of the Judgment

Stability in Prosecutions – Federal prosecutors in the Eleventh Circuit can continue to charge § 922(g)(1) confidently without bracing for successful Second Amendment attacks grounded in Bruen or Rahimi.
Guidance for District Judges – Trial courts now have another panel decision, post-Rahimi, reinforcing that felon challenges fail at step one of Bruen’s framework. This may encourage early disposition via motions to dismiss or summary judgment.
Commerce Clause Doctrine Intact – Despite renewed academic scrutiny of Commerce Clause limits, the “minimal nexus” doctrine retains full force in the firearms context.
Potential for Supreme Court Review – Although unpublished, the decision typifies how lower courts treat felon-in-possession challenges. Unless the Supreme Court revisits Heller’s dicta explicitly, certiorari petitions like Johnson’s will likely be denied.
Clarity on “Historical Twin” Misconception – By quoting Rahimi’s rejection of the need for a “historical twin,” the panel illustrates the limited scope of Bruen’s historical inquiry and curtails overbroad interpretations by defendants.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Facial vs. As-Applied Challenge
A facial challenge says the statute is invalid in every conceivable application; an as-applied challenge contends it is unconstitutional only as applied to a particular defendant. Johnson advanced both varieties.
Jurisdictional Element
A clause within a statute that requires a connection to interstate commerce (e.g., “in or affecting commerce”). Such language is crucial for constitutional validity under the Commerce Clause.
Minimal Nexus Test
The government need only show that the firearm once travelled across state lines—no further economic impact or ongoing commercial activity is necessary.
Prior-Panel-Precedent Rule
Binding rule in the Eleventh Circuit that a later three-judge panel cannot depart from an earlier published decision unless overruled en banc or by the Supreme Court.
Summary Affirmance
A streamlined disposition used when one party’s position is so clearly correct that a full appeal would be futile.

Conclusion

United States v. Kenya Johnson delivers a straightforward but consequential message: despite shifting Second Amendment jurisprudence, § 922(g)(1) remains constitutionally sound within the Eleventh Circuit. The panel’s heavy reliance on the prior-panel-precedent rule underscores the hierarchical nature of appellate law, while its Commerce Clause discussion reaffirms Congress’s power to regulate firearms that have moved interstate. Taken together, the decision solidifies a legal landscape in which felon-in-possession prosecutions proceed unimpeded, and offers a concise roadmap for resolving similar challenges going forward.