Featured Image: yourNEWS Media Illustration
The justices declined to hear the DOJ’s appeal after the Fifth Circuit ruled that a lifetime firearm ban for Edward Cockerham’s nonviolent felony violated the Second Amendment.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The Supreme Court declined Monday to take up a Department of Justice appeal in a Second Amendment case involving a man who lost his gun rights after a felony conviction for failing to pay child support.
The case involved Edward Cockerham, who pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm in violation of 18 USC 922(g)(1) after a Mississippi conviction related to unpaid child support. Cockerham appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in his favor, finding that applying a lifetime gun ban to his nonviolent offense violated the Second Amendment.
U.S. Circuit Judge James Ho, a Trump appointee, wrote the Fifth Circuit opinion. Ho rejected the government’s argument comparing failure to pay child support with theft, saying the historical treatment of debtors and thieves differed at the time of the Founding.
“The Government analogizes failure to pay child support to theft. But during the Founding era, thieves were treated differently from debtors,” Ho wrote. “Thieves were subject to permanent disarmament. Debtors were not. Debtors could be imprisoned, and thus temporarily disarmed.”
Ho said Cockerham had already resolved the child-support delinquency by the time he was found with a firearm.
“But they were released from debtors’ prison upon payment of their debt. And the Government acknowledges that Cockerham was no longer delinquent of any failure to pay child support when he was found in possession of a firearm,” Ho continued. “Cockerham’s conviction under §922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment.”
The Supreme Court’s decision not to review the case leaves the Fifth Circuit ruling intact, though it does not amount to a nationwide ruling on whether all nonviolent felons may be permanently barred from possessing firearms.
The case drew attention from gun rights advocates because it followed the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in United States v. Rahimi, which addressed firearm restrictions and the constitutional standard for disarmament.
Second Amendment Foundation Director of Legal Research and Education Konstadinos Moros told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the Fifth Circuit’s decision was consistent with the reasoning in Rahimi.
“SAF was happy to hear the Supreme Court declined to review this case, as the Fifth Circuit reached the correct ruling: dangerousness must be the standard for disarmament, and many nonviolent felons are not dangerous,” Moros told the DCNF. “That includes Mr. Cockerham, whose crime was failing to pay child support.”
Moros cautioned that the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal should not be read as a final statement on the issue.
“To be clear, the Supreme Court refusing to review a particular case does not necessarily mean the Court agrees with the lower court’s decision, so we should not treat this as definitive,” Moros continued. “Still, it is a possible sign that the high court is sticking closely to what it decided in Rahimi — actual dangerousness is required to deny a citizen their Second Amendment rights. The upcoming ruling in US v. Hemani should shed more light on this.”
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon told the Daily Caller News Foundation in a Monday interview that the Justice Department often defends federal laws in court even when officials may not personally agree with the policy being defended.
“I understand people have policy differences with DOJ’s enforcement of federal laws, but, in my opinion, and I’ve said this to many gun groups, the appropriate place to launch those, policy discussions is in Congress, not with us,” Dhillon said. “We have, I mean, not me, but other people in this building regularly respond to all kinds of litigation on behalf of the United States where I don’t necessarily agree with what we’re defending.”
The case comes as the Supreme Court is also considering another firearms-related challenge arising from the Fifth Circuit. In United States v. Hemani, the federal government is appealing a ruling that overturned a conviction under 18 USC 922(g)(3), which bars users or addicts of controlled substances from possessing firearms.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in Hemani in March, and a decision remains pending. Gun rights advocates and federal officials are watching that case for additional guidance on how courts should evaluate firearm prohibitions after Rahimi.
The Cockerham dispute was also referenced in an embedded X post included with the report.
Original article
Comments