New US Supreme Court gun case.
Decided 7:2.
JUSTICE BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court.
A federal statute, 18 U. S. C. §922(g), provides that “t
shall be unlawful” for certain individuals to possess firearms. The provision lists nine categories of individuals
subject to the prohibition, including felons and aliens who
are “illegally or unlawfully in the United States.” Ibid. A
separate provision, §924(a)(2), adds that anyone who
“knowingly violates” the first provision shall be fined or
imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Emphasis added.)
The question here concerns the scope of the word “knowingly.” Does it mean that the Government must prove
that a defendant knew both that he engaged in the relevant conduct (that he possessed a firearm) and also that
he fell within the relevant status (that he was a felon, an
alien unlawfully in this country, or the like)? We hold that
the word “knowingly” applies both to the defendant’s
conduct and to the defendant’s status. To convict a defendant, the Government therefore must show that the
defendant knew he possessed a firearm and also that he
knew he had the relevant status when he possessed it.
Petitioner Hamid Rehaif entered the United States on a
nonimmigrant student visa to attend university. After he
received poor grades, the university dismissed him and
told him that his “‘immigration status’” would be terminated unless he transferred to a different university or left
the country. App. to Pet. for Cert. 3a. Rehaif did neither.
Rehaif subsequently visited a firing range, where he
shot two firearms. The Government learned about his
target practice and prosecuted him for possessing firearms
as an alien unlawfully in the United States, in violation of
§922(g) and §924(a)(2). At the close of Rehaif ’s trial, the
judge instructed the jury (over Rehaif ’s objection) that the
“United States is not required to prove” that Rehaif “knew
that he was illegally or unlawfully in the United States.”
App. to Pet. for Cert. 4a (internal quotation marks omitted). The jury returned a guilty verdict, and Rehaif was
sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-9560_e2p3.pdf
Decided 7:2.
JUSTICE BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court.
A federal statute, 18 U. S. C. §922(g), provides that “t
shall be unlawful” for certain individuals to possess firearms. The provision lists nine categories of individuals
subject to the prohibition, including felons and aliens who
are “illegally or unlawfully in the United States.” Ibid. A
separate provision, §924(a)(2), adds that anyone who
“knowingly violates” the first provision shall be fined or
imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Emphasis added.)
The question here concerns the scope of the word “knowingly.” Does it mean that the Government must prove
that a defendant knew both that he engaged in the relevant conduct (that he possessed a firearm) and also that
he fell within the relevant status (that he was a felon, an
alien unlawfully in this country, or the like)? We hold that
the word “knowingly” applies both to the defendant’s
conduct and to the defendant’s status. To convict a defendant, the Government therefore must show that the
defendant knew he possessed a firearm and also that he
knew he had the relevant status when he possessed it.
Petitioner Hamid Rehaif entered the United States on a
nonimmigrant student visa to attend university. After he
received poor grades, the university dismissed him and
told him that his “‘immigration status’” would be terminated unless he transferred to a different university or left
the country. App. to Pet. for Cert. 3a. Rehaif did neither.
Rehaif subsequently visited a firing range, where he
shot two firearms. The Government learned about his
target practice and prosecuted him for possessing firearms
as an alien unlawfully in the United States, in violation of
§922(g) and §924(a)(2). At the close of Rehaif ’s trial, the
judge instructed the jury (over Rehaif ’s objection) that the
“United States is not required to prove” that Rehaif “knew
that he was illegally or unlawfully in the United States.”
App. to Pet. for Cert. 4a (internal quotation marks omitted). The jury returned a guilty verdict, and Rehaif was
sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-9560_e2p3.pdf