UNITED STATES v. FRENCH (2024)

LaMorris Allan French appeals his conviction, arguing that the statute of conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Section 922(g)(1) is known as the felon-in-possession statute. It prohibits any person convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment” for more than one year from possessing “any firearm or ammunition.” Although the Supreme Court has yet to address the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1), it has continued to emphasize that laws disarming “felons” are “presumptively lawful.” United States v. Rahimi, ––– U.S. ––––, 144 S. Ct. 1889, 1902, 219 L.Ed.2d 351 (2024) (quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626–27 n.26, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008)).

A facial challenge is the “most difficult challenge to mount successfully.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987). As the Supreme Court has recently reminded, courts must apply the Salerno test to every facial challenge not “based on the First Amendment.” Moody v. NetChoice, ––– U.S. ––––, 144 S. Ct. 2383, 2397, 219 L.Ed.2d 1075 (2024); see also id. at 2409 (“Even in the First Amendment context, facial challenges are disfavored ․”). So, naturally, Salerno applies to this facial challenge based on the Second Amendment. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. at 1898. Under Salerno, French must “establish that no set of circumstances exists under which” the law “would be valid.” Salerno, 481 U.S. at 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095.

We recently applied these standards to § 922(g)(1) and held the statute is facially constitutional. See United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471-72 (5th Cir. 2024) (applying Salerno and upholding § 922(g)(1)).

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam: