Upholding Federal Felon-in-Possession Ban: Section 922(g)(1) Constitutional Post-Bruen

Introduction

United States v. Branson is a Fifth Circuit decision affirming the conviction of Marcus Delars Branson for possessing firearms after a felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Branson challenged the statute on multiple constitutional grounds—facial and as‐applied Second Amendment claims under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, a Commerce Clause challenge, an equal‐protection‐under‐the‐Fifth challenge, and a void‐for‐vagueness challenge. The court reviewed his preserved Second Amendment claims de novo and unpreserved claims for plain error. Ultimately, the court held all his challenges foreclosed by binding precedent or without merit, and it affirmed his forty‐one‐month sentence.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fifth Circuit unanimously rejected Branson’s challenges to § 922(g)(1). It held:

Facial Second Amendment challenge: Foreclosed by United States v. Diaz (2024).
As‐applied Second Amendment challenge: Foreclosed by United States v. Schnur (2025) and Diaz.
Commerce Clause challenge: Foreclosed by United States v. Seekins (2022).
Equal protection (Fifth Amendment) challenge: Foreclosed by United States v. Howard (2024).
Vagueness challenge: Rejected on the merits and, in any event, reviewed for plain error.

The court concluded § 922(g)(1) clearly prohibits firearm possession by any person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year and that Branson’s bank robbery conviction placed him squarely within that prohibition.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen (2022): Established the test for Second Amendment challenges—whether the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
United States v. Diaz (5th Cir. 2024): Held § 922(g)(1) facially constitutional post‐Bruen.
United States v. Schnur (5th Cir. 2025): Rejected an as‐applied challenge for theft‐related offenses under § 922(g)(1).
United States v. Seekins (5th Cir. 2022): Rejected Commerce Clause attack on § 922(g)(1).
United States v. Howard (5th Cir. 2014, 2024): Clarified standard of review for preserved and unpreserved constitutional challenges, and rejected Fifth Amendment equal protection challenge.
Vagueness authorities: FCC v. Fox Television Stations (2012), Connally v. General Construction (1926), Papachristou v. Jacksonville (1972), United States v. Mazurie (1975), United States v. National Dairy Products (1963).

Legal Reasoning

1. Standard of Review. The court applied de novo review to preserved challenges and plain‐error review to those not raised below. 2. Second Amendment Claims. Under Bruen’s historical‐tradition test, § 922(g)(1) remains valid: historical precedents disarming felons date back centuries, and recent Fifth Circuit cases Diaz and Schnur bind the court against facial and as‐applied attacks. 3. Commerce Clause and Equal Protection Claims. Branson conceded these arguments were foreclosed by settled circuit precedents (Seekins and Howard). 4. Vagueness Challenge. § 922(g)(1) clearly states that any person “convicted . . . of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” may not possess a firearm. Because Branson’s thirty‐seven‐month bank robbery sentence fit squarely within that text, an ordinary person had fair notice—satisfying due‐process vagueness doctrine. His attempt to inject Bruen’s subsequent interpretive overlay into the vagueness analysis failed. Even if error existed, it was not “plain” under Fifth Circuit plain‐error review.

Impact

This decision cements the Fifth Circuit’s post‐Bruen jurisprudence:

It reaffirms that § 922(g)(1) survives robust Second Amendment scrutiny when tested against historical tradition.
It signals that felon‐in‐possession statutes will face an uphill battle against vagueness attacks unless the statutory text itself is ambiguous.
It discourages relitigation of Commerce Clause and Fifth Amendment equal protection arguments previously resolved in the circuit.

Future litigants in the Fifth Circuit challenging federal firearms restrictions will find Branson an indispensable authority upholding congressional power to disarm those convicted of serious crimes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Bruen’s Historical‐Tradition Test: Any modern firearm regulation must be consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, rather than weighed using means‐end scrutiny.
Facial vs. As‐Applied Challenges: A facial challenge asserts a law is invalid in all applications; an as‐applied challenge contends the law was wrongly applied to a particular individual’s circumstances.
Plain‐Error Review: Review applied to issues not raised at trial. The appellant must show an error, that it is unequivocally clear (plain), that it impacted substantial rights, and that it undermines judicial integrity.
Vagueness Doctrine: A statute is void for vagueness if it fails to give ordinary people fair notice of prohibited conduct or if it invites arbitrary enforcement.

Conclusion

United States v. Branson reinforces that the federal ban on firearm possession by felons under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) remains constitutional under the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the Due Process Clause. It also clarifies that § 922(g)(1) is not unconstitutionally vague because its plain text provides clear notice to individuals with qualifying felony convictions. In the post‐Bruen landscape, Branson stands as a definitive statement of the Fifth Circuit’s commitment to upholding federal firearms regulations consistent with historical tradition and settled circuit precedent.