Reyes Reaffirms Tradition of Disarming Dangerous Felons after Bruen: The Fifth Circuit’s Post-Rahimi Framework for § 922(g)(1) As-Applied Challenges

Introduction

United States v. Reyes, No. 24-40369 (5th Cir. 2025), marks the Fifth Circuit’s first full-length application of the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in United States v. Rahimi to a felon-in-possession prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Appellant Luis Reyes, a documented gang member with a lengthy history of violent and drug-related felonies, pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon but preserved three constitutional objections:

A facial Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1).
An as-applied Second Amendment challenge under the analytical framework adopted in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) and clarified in Rahimi (2024).
An as-applied Commerce Clause challenge arguing that Congress exceeded its enumerated powers.

The district court denied his motion to dismiss, and Reyes received a 41-month sentence. On appeal he sought to overturn the conviction, contending that modern Supreme Court jurisprudence has unsettled earlier decisions upholding § 922(g)(1).

Summary of the Judgment

The Fifth Circuit (Judges Elrod, King, and Graves, per curiam) affirmed in full:

Reyes’s facial attack on § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed by binding circuit precedent, which the panel cannot overrule absent an intervening Supreme Court or en banc decision.
His Commerce Clause argument fails because longstanding Fifth Circuit authority deems the interstate-nexus element satisfied once the firearm is shown to have crossed state lines at any time.
Applying the two-step Bruen/Rahimi test, the court held that disarming a felon with Reyes’s violent background is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition”, defeating his as-applied Second Amendment claim.
The panel also addressed—but ultimately bypassed—the government’s waiver argument, finding that Reyes had adequately preserved his as-applied constitutional challenge in the district court.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) – Established a history-and-tradition test for gun restrictions, discarding “means-end scrutiny.” Reyes invoked Bruen to argue that felons were not historically disarmed solely because of criminal status.
United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024) – Clarified that legislatures may disarm individuals who pose a credible danger to others and upheld § 922(g)(8) (domestic-violence restraining orders). The Fifth Circuit treated Rahimi as directly analogous: Reyes’s multiple violent felonies satisfied the “dangerousness” rationale.
Fifth Circuit Felon-in-Possession Cases Post-Bruen:
• United States v. Bullock, 123 F.4th 183 (5th Cir. 2024)
• United States v. Arredondo, 2025 WL 1249901 (5th Cir. Apr. 30, 2025)
• United States v. Davis, 2025 WL 958265 (5th Cir. Mar. 31, 2025)
These decisions uniformly upheld § 922(g)(1) as applied to violent felons, and the panel cited them to demonstrate an emerging intra-circuit consensus.
United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143 (5th Cir. 2013) – Reiterated the “rule of orderliness,” binding later panels to earlier circuit precedent absent an intervening change in the law. This doctrine foreclosed Reyes’s facial challenge.
United States v. Seekins, 2022 WL 3644185 (5th Cir. Aug. 24, 2022) & United States v. Guidry, 406 F.3d 314 (5th Cir. 2005) – Addressed the interstate-nexus element, defeating Reyes’s Commerce Clause theory.

B. Legal Reasoning

Standard of Review
• Preserved constitutional challenges: de novo.
• Unpreserved arguments: “plain error.”
The court held that Reyes had preserved his Second Amendment attack but not the Commerce Clause theory.
Facial Second Amendment Challenge
Because Fifth Circuit precedent upholding § 922(g)(1) remains good law, the panel applied the rule of orderliness and summarily rejected a facial invalidation.
As-Applied Second Amendment Challenge
Under Bruen/Rahimi the government must point to historical analogues that justify disarming people in Reyes’s situation.
• The panel emphasized colonial and 19th-century laws disarming dangerous individuals (insurrectionists, violent actors, “dangerous lunatics”).
• Reyes’s record—drive-by shootings, drug-distribution felonies, prior unlawful firearm possession—made him “squarely within” that tradition.
Thus § 922(g)(1) satisfied the historical analogue requirement as applied to Reyes.
Commerce Clause Challenge
The court reiterated that a past interstate movement of the firearm suffices; Congress may regulate “in or affecting commerce” firearms without proving the defendant’s personal role in interstate trade. No Supreme Court case post-Lopez calls that into doubt, so failure to dismiss on this ground was not plain error.

C. Likely Impact of the Decision

Reyes cements the Fifth Circuit’s post-Rahimi roadmap for felon-in-possession prosecutions:

“Dangerousness” Filter: A defendant’s violent or drug-trafficking history will almost certainly defeat an as-applied Second Amendment challenge.
History-and-Tradition Dialed-In: The decision signals that the court views historical disarmament of dangerous persons as a close enough analogue—thus lowering the evidentiary burden on prosecutors compared with early post-Bruen litigation.
Commerce Clause Stability: By reaffirming Guidry and related cases, Reyes discourages future defendants from pressing Commerce Clause arguments unless the Supreme Court seriously revisits the doctrine.
Plea-Agreement Carve-Outs: The opinion briefly addresses waiver, indicating that defendants can still preserve specific constitutional questions if the plea agreement expressly reserves them.
En Banc or Supreme Court Review Required for Change: Reyes underscores that only an en banc Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court can unsettle existing circuit precedent on the facial validity of § 922(g)(1).

Complex Concepts Simplified

Facial vs. As-Applied Challenge
• Facial: The statute is invalid in all circumstances.
• As-applied: The statute is unconstitutional only as applied to the specific defendant or facts.
Rule of Orderliness
A doctrine unique to some circuits (including the Fifth) requiring a later panel to follow an earlier panel’s holding unless a higher authority intervenes.
Bruen/Rahimi Framework
Step 1: Does the conduct fall within the Second Amendment’s plain text?
Step 2: If so, does historical tradition support the modern restriction?
No interest-balancing, no tiers of scrutiny.
Plain Error Review
A four-prong test used when an argument is raised for the first time on appeal: error must be clear or obvious, affect substantial rights, and seriously affect the fairness or integrity of judicial proceedings.
Commerce Clause “In or Affecting Commerce” Element
In felon-in-possession cases, the government need only show that the firearm crossed state lines at any moment in its history; the defendant’s own conduct is irrelevant.

Conclusion

United States v. Reyes fortifies the Fifth Circuit’s post-Bruen approach to § 922(g)(1), making two points abundantly clear: (1) violent felons remain outside the Second Amendment’s core protections, and (2) longstanding precedent upholding the statute’s interstate-commerce nexus remains undisturbed. By weaving Rahimi’s “credible threat” language into the felon-disarmament context, the court supplies prosecutors with a ready rebuttal to as-applied challenges and signals to district courts that a robust criminal history will ordinarily suffice. Unless and until the Supreme Court narrows the definition of “dangerous felon” or revisits the interstate-commerce framework, § 922(g)(1) prosecutions in the Fifth Circuit stand on firm constitutional ground.