United States v. Kelvontae Brown: Eleventh Circuit Re-Affirms the Presumptive Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) After Bruen and Rahimi

1. Introduction

United States v. Kelvontae Brown, No. 24-11730 (11th Cir. June 23, 2025) is the latest decision in a string of post-Bruen litigation concerning the federal felon-in-possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The Defendant-Appellant, Kelvontae Brown, previously convicted of multiple felonies, was found with a handgun after police responded to reports of an armed individual. Brown moved to dismiss his indictment, contending that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional—both facially and as applied—under the Supreme Court’s evolving Second Amendment jurisprudence in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) and United States v. Rahimi (2024).

The district court denied the motion based on Eleventh Circuit precedent (United States v. Rozier, 2010). Brown pleaded guilty but preserved his constitutional claim for appeal. The Court of Appeals, in a per curiam, non-argument opinion, affirmed the conviction and emphatically reiterated that, even after Bruen and Rahimi, prohibitions on firearm possession by felons remain “presumptively lawful.”

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit held:

• Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional on its face and as applied to Brown.
• Existing binding precedent—United States v. Rozier—forecloses any contrary argument; neither Bruen nor Rahimi overruled or undermined that precedent.
• The Court therefore affirmed Brown’s conviction and sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

1. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
   Recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms but labeled bans on felon possession “presumptively lawful.”
2. United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 768 (11th Cir. 2010)
   Applied Heller to uphold § 922(g)(1); treated felons as outside the core Second Amendment right.
3. New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)
   Established the “text-and-history” test, invalidating New York’s “proper-cause” licensing scheme, but repeatedly described the right as belonging to “law-abiding, responsible citizens.”
4. United States v. Dubois, 94 F.4th 1284 (11th Cir. 2024), vacated & reinstated 2025
   Reapplied Rozier post-Bruen; vacated and reinstated after Rahimi, underscoring continuing validity.
5. United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024)
   Upheld § 922(g)(8) (firearms ban for those under domestic-violence restraining orders) and reaffirmed that disarming felons is presumptively lawful.

3.2 Legal Reasoning of the Court

The panel’s reasoning followed a streamlined path mandated by the doctrine of stare decisis within the Circuit:

1. Binding Authority. Under the Eleventh Circuit’s prior-panel rule, Rozier remains binding unless and until it is overruled by the Supreme Court or the Eleventh Circuit sitting en banc. Neither event has occurred.
2. Bruen Consistency. While Bruen changed the methodology for evaluating Second-Amendment challenges, it expressly framed the right as limited to “law-abiding” citizens. The Eleventh Circuit reasoned that a convicted felon is not “law-abiding,” so Bruen does not destabilize § 922(g)(1).
3. Rahimi Clarification. The Supreme Court in Rahimi again referenced felon-in-possession bans as “presumptively lawful,” thereby “reinforcing—not undermining—Rozier.” Thus, any argument that Rahimi implicitly invalidated § 922(g)(1) fails.
4. Facial vs. As-Applied. Because felons categorically fall outside the core protection, a facial challenge necessarily fails. Brown’s as-applied claim fares no better because nothing about his particular circumstances removes him from that disfavored class.
5. Standard of Review. Constitutional questions receive de novo review, but the Court’s hands are tied where precedent squarely controls.

3.3 Potential Impact

• Stability in Felon-In-Possession Prosecutions. The decision assures prosecutors, district courts, and probation officers that § 922(g)(1) prosecutions remain on firm constitutional footing despite the unsettled landscape created by Bruen.
• Guidance to Lower Courts. District courts in the Eleventh Circuit must continue to deny motions to dismiss § 922(g)(1) indictments absent Supreme Court intervention.
• Second Amendment Litigation Trajectory. By emphasizing that Rahimi “reinforces” felon disarmament, the case may curb a growing wave of challenges based on creative readings of “law-abiding” or “responsible.”
• Possible Supreme Court Review. While unlikely in the near term, petitioners may push for certiorari to revisit whether lifetime firearm bans for all felons are overbroad. Brown’s case lays groundwork but highlights the uphill battle.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Facial vs. As-Applied Challenge:
  A facial challenge argues the law is invalid in all applications; an as-applied challenge attacks its validity only as applied to a particular individual or set of facts.
• Presumptively Lawful Regulations:
  Categories of firearm regulations that Supreme Court precedent (starting with Heller) has effectively placed outside ordinary Second Amendment scrutiny. The government need not provide extensive historical analogues for them.
• Text-and-History Test (Bruen):
  Step 1: Does the challenged law regulate conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text? Step 2: If yes, is the regulation consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation?
• Stare Decisis / Prior-Panel Rule:
  An appellate panel must follow an earlier published panel decision unless overturned by the Supreme Court or the Circuit sitting en banc.
• Per Curiam:
  An opinion issued “by the court” collectively, rather than signed by a single judge—often used when the legal question is straightforward or governed by clear precedent.
• Non-Argument Calendar:
  Cases decided without oral argument because the panel concludes that briefing fully resolves the legal issues.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Kelvontae Brown reinforces a central—and recurrent—theme of modern Second Amendment jurisprudence: the right to keep and bear arms, though fundamental, is not unlimited. The Eleventh Circuit’s adherence to Rozier against the backdrop of Bruen and Rahimi signals that statutory bans on firearm possession by felons remain entrenched. Unless the Supreme Court undertakes a wholesale re-evaluation of felon disarmament, § 922(g)(1) will continue to withstand constitutional attack. For practitioners, the case provides a concise roadmap: in the Eleventh Circuit, challenges to § 922(g)(1) are foreclosed, and reliance on Bruen or Rahimi is unavailing. In the broader legal context, Brown underscores the resilience of established “presumptively lawful” carve-outs even as the Court explores new frontiers in Second Amendment analysis.