United States v. Quiroz

In United States v. Quiroz, 125 F.4th 713 (5th Cir. 2025), the Fifth Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(n)—which prohibits receiving a firearm while under a felony indictment—is “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation,” so it is constitutional even after New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) and United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024).

Legal Background: As the Fifth Circuit summarized:

In Bruen, the Supreme Court explained that “when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.” To justify its regulation of that protected conduct, “the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with [the] Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” As with regulations of other constitutional rights, the government bears the burden of establishing this justification.

Holding: Section 922(n) is constitutional because it is “consistent with” America’s “long history of disarming criminal defendants facing serious charges pending trial.” “Although the government here [did] not identify a historical law that specifically prevented acquisition of firearms by those under indictment, this lack of a historical twin [was] not dispositive to [the court’s] inquiry into the constitutionality of § 922(n).”

Reasoning: In a thorough opinion by Judge Priscilla Richman, the court reviewed the nation’s historical record of detaining criminal defendants charged with serious crimes while they awaited trial, and it concluded that those regulations had a similar purpose and a “comparable burden” to that imposed today by § 922(n). “This modern regulation ‘fits neatly’ within our nation’s historical tradition of protecting the public from criminal defendants indicted for serious offenses” (quoting Rahimi, 602 U.S. at 698).