United States v. LeBlanc: The Fifth Circuit’s Firm Embrace of Diaz and the Historical Disarmament of Property Offenders

Introduction

United States v. LeBlanc, No. 24-30036 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2025), revisits the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)—the federal “felon-in-possession” prohibition—after the Supreme Court’s text-and-history methodology announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen (2022). Timothy LeBlanc, a Louisiana felon with prior convictions for theft and armed robbery, persuaded the district court that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional as applied to him. The Government appealed.

Against the backdrop of the Fifth Circuit’s own upheaval in United States v. Rahimi (2024) and its seminal post-Bruen decision in United States v. Diaz (2024), the panel (Judges Wiener, Willett, and Ho) reverses. The opinion consolidates two critical rules:

The Rule of Orderliness binds later panels to earlier Fifth Circuit precedent (Diaz) unless an “unequivocal” change emanates from the Supreme Court or the en banc court.
Under Bruen, there is a sufficient “historical analogue” for disarming persons convicted of theft-related felonies; therefore, § 922(g)(1) remains constitutional both facially and as applied to defendants like LeBlanc.

Summary of the Judgment

Holding: The district court’s dismissal of LeBlanc’s indictment is reversed; § 922(g)(1) is constitutional on its face and as applied to LeBlanc.
Key Findings:
- Diaz—which upheld § 922(g)(1) against both facial and theft-based as-applied challenges—remains binding circuit law.
- LeBlanc’s felonies (armed robbery, theft > $500) qualify as predicates under § 922(g)(1) because each carries a maximum sentence beyond one year.
- Founding-era and 19th-century sources show a tradition of severe, permanent punishment and disarmament for property offenders; that tradition is “relevantly similar” to modern § 922(g)(1).
Disposition: Case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion (i.e., reinstatement of the indictment).

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) – replaced means-ends scrutiny with a text-and-history test.
United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458 (5th Cir. 2024) – first Fifth Circuit case applying Bruen to § 922(g)(1); abandoned older cases that relied on interest-balancing.
United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001) & United States v. Darrington, 351 F.3d 632 (5th Cir. 2003) – earlier felon-in-possession cases, now abrogated.
United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024) – Supreme Court clarified that firearms prohibitions may stand where a historical analogue exists; casts doubt on blanket disqualification of alleged “dangerous” persons but preserves room for historically grounded restrictions.
Post-Diaz panels — Schnur, Charles, Collette — reaffirmed that theft-related felons lack a viable as-applied challenge.

B. Legal Reasoning

Step 1 – Textual Coverage
The court accepts (citing Diaz) that “the people” includes felons and that keeping a handgun is presumptively protected; therefore, § 922(g)(1) burdens LeBlanc’s Second Amendment right.
Step 2 – Historical Analogue
The Government need only show a “well-established and representative analogue,” not a perfect match (Bruen). Early American law treated theft and robbery as capital felonies or imposed estate forfeiture—harsher than a modern firearms disability. Because the historical burden (death or forfeiture) exceeded or paralleled today’s burden (gun disqualification), the fit is “relevantly similar.”
Rule of Orderliness as an Analytical Gatekeeper
Absent an “unequivocal” Supreme Court reversal, the Fifth Circuit must follow Diaz; ergo, the panel rejects the district court’s conclusion that Bruen wiped away circuit precedent.

C. Impact of the Judgment

Immediate Effect: District courts within the Fifth Circuit are now bound to deny facial or as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(1) brought by defendants with theft-related or robbery-related felonies.
Narrowing the Post-Bruen Litigation Space: LeBlanc sharply limits creative as-applied challenges that rely on the notion that non-violent property felonies fall outside the historical tradition. The opinion clarifies that property offenses were historically viewed as serious threats to civic virtue and adequate grounds for lifelong disarmament.
Relationship to Rahimi: By emphasizing a concrete historical record, LeBlanc draws a doctrinal contrast with situations—like domestic-violence restraining orders—where the historical pedigree may be thinner or more contested.
Guidance for Future Panels: The opinion re-centers the “rule of orderliness” as a safeguard against panel conflicts in the wake of rapidly evolving Second Amendment jurisprudence.
National Influence: While binding only within the Fifth Circuit, LeBlanc supplies persuasive authority for other circuits confronting theft-based as-applied challenges, especially those unsettled after Rahimi.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Facial vs. As-Applied Challenge
A facial attack says “the statute is unconstitutional in every instance.” An as-applied attack concedes the statute may be valid in general but argues it cannot be applied to this particular defendant.
Rule of Orderliness
Within the Fifth Circuit, a three-judge panel cannot overrule earlier panel precedent unless a subsequent Supreme Court or en banc Fifth Circuit decision unmistakably changes the law.
Historical-Analogue Test (Bruen)
After finding that a law burdens protected conduct, courts must identify a “well-established and representative” historical regulation that is “relevantly similar” in how and why it restricts the right.
Predicate Felony under § 922(g)(1)
Any state or federal crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment. Armed robbery in Louisiana carries 10-99 years; theft > $500 carried up to 10 years in 2004—both exceed the threshold.

Conclusion

United States v. LeBlanc is more than a routine reversal; it fortifies the Fifth Circuit’s post-Bruen roadmap. By placing Diaz squarely at the center of Second Amendment litigation, the panel underscores two enduring propositions: (1) historical tradition can justify disarming property felons, and (2) circuit stability demands adherence to prior precedent unless the Supreme Court says otherwise. For litigants, prosecutors, and judges alike, the decision signals that theft- or robbery-based challenges to § 922(g)(1) will find little traction in the Fifth Circuit, and perhaps beyond, unless the Supreme Court charts a different historical course.