Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Rehaif v. United States

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Rehaif v. United States
Term: 2018
Important Dates
Argument: April 23, 2019
Decided: June 21, 2019
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
7-2
Majority
Stephen Breyer • John G. Roberts • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh
Dissenting
Samuel Alito • Clarence Thomas

Rehaif v. United States is a case that was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 23, 2019, during the court's 2018-2019 term. It came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.[1] The court ruled in Rehaif's favor, reversing and remanding the lower court's decision.[2]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Hamid Mohamed Ahmed Ali Rehaif was in the U.S. on a nonimmigrant student visa studying at the Florida Institute of Technology. He was academically dismissed in December 2014, and his immigration status was terminated in February 2015. Rehaif remained in the U.S. and, in December 2015, purchased ammunition and rented a firearm at a shooting range for one hour. He was eventually charged with violating a law which prohibits a person who is illegally in the United States from possessing firearms or ammunition. At trial, the government and Rehaif requested different jury instructions. The district court instructed the jury as requested by the government and overruled an objection from Rehaif. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions.
  • The issues: Whether the “knowingly” provision of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) applies to both the possession and status elements of a § 922(g) crime, or whether it applies only to the possession element.
  • The outcome: The United States Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, finding that prosecutors must prove both that an individual knew that they possessed a firearm and that they knew they were barred from doing so in order to convict, and remanded the case back to the 11th Circuit.[2]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.[3]

    Timeline

    • June 21, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the 11th Circuit's ruling.
    • April 23, 2019: Oral argument
    • January 11, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case
    • June 21, 2018: Petition filed with the U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 26, 2018: The 11th Circuit affirmed the case

    Background

    Hamid Mohamed Ahmed Ali Rehaif was in the United States on a nonimmigrant student visa studying at the Florida Institute of Technology. Rehaif was academically dismissed in December 2014. His immigration status was terminated in February 2015. Rehaif remained in the country and went to a shooting range in December 2015. He purchased a box of ammunition and rented a firearm for one hour.

    Six days later, an employee at the hotel where Rehaif was staying called the police to report that Rehaif had been acting suspiciously. An FBI agent spoke with Rehaif, who admitted that he had fired two firearms at the shooting range and that he was aware that his student visa was out of status. Rehaif consented to a search of his hotel room, where the agents found the remaining ammunition that he had purchased at the shooting range. A federal grand jury charged Rehaif with violating a law which prohibits a person who “is illegally or unlawfully in the United States” from possessing “any firearm or ammunition.”[4]

    At trial, the government requested an instruction for the jury that “[t]he United States is not required to prove that the defendant knew that he was illegally or unlawfully in the United States.”[3] Rehaif disagreed, saying the United States had to prove both that he had knowingly possessed a firearm and that he had known that he was illegally in the United States when he had possessed the firearm. The district court overruled Rehaif's objection. The government also requested an instruction stating that "[t]he alien's presence becomes unlawful upon the date of the status violation."[3] Rehaif proposed an instruction stating that "[a] person admitted to the United States on a student visa does not become unlawfully present until an Immigration Officer or an Immigration Judge determines that [he] ha[s] violated [his] student status."[3]

    The district court instructed the jury as requested by the government and overruled Rehaif’s objection. The 11th Circuit affirmed the convictions, citing circuit precedent that the government does not need to prove that the defendant knew of his prohibited status.

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[5]

    Questions presented:
    • Whether the “knowingly” provision of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) applies to both the possession and status elements of a § 922(g) crime, or whether it applies only to the possession element.

    Outcome

    On June 21, 2019, the court reversed and remanded the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. In a 7-2 opinion, the court held that in order to convict an individual of unlawful possession of a firearm, prosecutors must prove the individual knew they possessed a firearm and knew that they were barred from doing so.[2] Justice Stephen Breyer delivered the opinion of the court.

    Opinion

    In his opinion, Justice Breyer wrote:[2]

    “ 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. [6] ”

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Thomas.

    In his dissent, Alito wrote:[2]

    “ The majority today opens the gates to a flood of litigation that is sure to burden the lower courts with claims for relief in a host of cases where there is no basis for doubting the defendant’s knowledge. The majority’s interpretation of §922(g) is not required by the statutory text, and there is no reason to suppose that it represents what Congress intended.[6] ”

    Text of the opinion

    Audio



    Transcript

    Outcome

    The case is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Docket No. 17-9560," accessed March 20, 2019
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Supreme Court of the United States, "Rehaif v. United States," June 21, 2019
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Case Text, "United States v. Rehaif," accessed March 20, 2019
    4. ↑ Legal Information Insitute, "18 U.S. Code § 922. Unlawful acts," accessed March 20, 2019
    5. ↑ SCOTUS Blog, "Rehaif v. United States," accessed March 20, 2019
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Rehaif_v._United_States&oldid=9117280"