Skip to content
A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

A Crimmigration Decision from the Supreme Court: Rehaif v. United States

180px-Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court_svg

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court held that, in a prosecution under 18 U. S. C. §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2), the U.S. government must prove both (1) that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and (2) that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing one.  The Court decided the case in a 7-2 opinion written by Justice Breyer. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined.  Here is the opinion in Rehaif v. United States

Evan Lee for SCOTUSBlog analyzes the Court’s decision and summarizes the decision as follows:

“In order to convict an unauthorized immigrant for gun possession, a federal prosecutor must prove not only that the defendant knew he possessed the gun but also that he knew he was out of immigration status, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 . . . in Rehaif v. United States. The decision will almost certainly lead to collateral attacks on convictions under a much more commonly invoked provision criminalizing gun possession by convicted felons.”

Lee notes that, under the decision,

“Hamid Rehaif will be among those who get a hearing on whether he actually knew he was out of immigration status. He had come to the United States on a student visa to study at a university in Florida, but he was academically dismissed. In informing him about his dismissal, the university’s email notified him that his immigration status would be terminated if he did not transfer to another school or leave the United States, neither of which he did. Instead, he stayed in Florida. During that stay, he went to a firing range, purchased ammunition and fired weapons. Hotel staff tipped off the FBI that Rehaif was engaging in suspicious behavior.”

Lee further observes that

In a vehement dissent, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, protested that the decision will lead to a flood of challenges by people currently incarcerated under Section 922(g), most of them in the felon-in-possession category.”

KJ

Posted in: