United States v. Connelly

In United States v. Connelly, —- F.4th —-, No. 23-50312 (5th Cir. Aug. 28, 2024), the Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3) and § 922(g)(3) were unconstitutional as applied to the defendant, although it reversed the district court’s conclusion that the laws were facially unconstitutional.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), no person may provide firearms or ammunitions to an “unlawful user of … any controlled substance,” and under § 922(g)(3) no “unlawful user of … any controlled substance” may possess firearms or ammunition. In this case, “Paola Connelly is a non-violent, marijuana smoking gunowner,” who was not intoxicated at the time police officers found firearms in her home.

In this case, the Fifth Circuit applied the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. 1889 (2024), which directs courts to “ascertain whether [a] new law is ‘relevantly similar’ to laws that our tradition is understood to permit, applying faithfully the balance struck by the founding generation to modern circumstances” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).

Applying that test, the Fifth Circuit concluded that history and tradition do not support applying § 922(g)(3) to Connelly here. If someone were “so intoxicated as to be in a state comparable to ‘lunacy,’” they might be properly prohibited from possessing firearms, because such a rule would be analogous to historical laws disarming the severely mentally ill. But “while sober, [Connelly] is like a repeat alcohol user between periods of intoxication, whom the Founders would not disarm.”

“Boiled down, § 922(g)(3) is much broader than historical intoxication laws.” Because that law restricts Connelly’s rights “more than would any of the historical and traditional laws highlighted by the government,” it was unconstitutional as applied in this case.

Nevertheless, § 922(d)(3) and § 922(g)(3) were both deemed facially constitutional because “there are indeed some sets of circumstances where § 922(g)(3) would be valid, such as banning presently intoxicated persons from carrying weapons.”