The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is reviewing a constitutional challenge to federal firearms laws in *United States v. Jackson*, a case that highlights the ongoing judicial interpretation of gun rights following the Supreme Court's decision in *New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen* (2022).
Cedric Cornell Jackson appeals his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits certain individuals from possessing firearms. Jackson argues that the statute is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in *Bruen*, which established a new framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges.
The case stems from Jackson's conviction in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas under case number 3:21-CR-524-1. Jackson was found guilty of violating the federal statute that makes it unlawful for certain categories of people to possess firearms or ammunition.
Section 922(g)(1) of Title 18 specifically prohibits individuals who have been convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for more than one year from possessing firearms. This provision has been a cornerstone of federal gun control law, affecting thousands of individuals with felony convictions across the United States.
Jackson's challenge comes in the wake of *Bruen*, the Supreme Court's 2022 decision that fundamentally altered how courts must analyze Second Amendment cases. The *Bruen* decision established that gun regulations must be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation, moving away from the previously used two-step approach that included means-end scrutiny.
The Fifth Circuit panel hearing the case consists of Circuit Judges King, Haynes, and Ho. The court is considering the appeal on summary calendar, indicating the case may be decided without oral argument based on the briefs and record.
The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a brief. This procedural posture suggests the Government believes the lower court's decision should be affirmed without extensive briefing.
According to court documents, the Government argues that Jackson's facial constitutional challenge is foreclosed by existing precedent. Federal courts have generally been reluctant to find Section 922(g)(1) facially unconstitutional, even after *Bruen*, though the landscape continues to evolve as courts grapple with the new constitutional standard.
The *Bruen* decision has created uncertainty in firearms law, with federal appeals courts reaching different conclusions about which gun regulations can survive constitutional scrutiny under the new historical test. Some provisions that previously withstood Second Amendment challenges under the old framework have faced renewed scrutiny.
Jackson's case represents one of many constitutional challenges to federal firearms laws that have emerged since *Bruen*. Defense attorneys across the country have argued that various provisions of federal gun law cannot meet the Supreme Court's new requirement that regulations be consistent with historical tradition.
The Fifth Circuit has been particularly active in Second Amendment jurisprudence, issuing several notable decisions on firearms regulations in recent years. The court's ruling in this case could provide guidance for similar challenges throughout the circuit, which covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
Section 922(g) contains nine categories of prohibited persons, including those convicted of felonies, individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders, and people who have been adjudicated as mentally defective. While Jackson's challenge specifically targets subsection (g)(1) regarding felony convictions, the broader implications could affect other prohibited person categories.
The case highlights the tension between public safety concerns and individual constitutional rights. Supporters of the federal law argue that preventing convicted felons from accessing firearms serves compelling public safety interests and has deep historical roots. Critics contend that blanket prohibitions may be too broad under the *Bruen* standard.
Court documents indicate the case was filed on January 27, 2026, with the appeal being designated for summary calendar treatment. The opinion is marked as not designated for publication, meaning it will not create binding precedent but could still provide guidance for future cases.
The outcome of Jackson's appeal could have significant implications for federal firearms prosecutions, particularly in the Fifth Circuit. If the court were to find Section 922(g)(1) unconstitutional, it could affect thousands of pending and future cases involving prohibited person prosecutions.
Legal observers are closely watching how federal appellate courts interpret *Bruen* in the context of longstanding firearms regulations. The Supreme Court's decision left many questions unanswered about which historical analogies are sufficient to support modern gun laws.
As the Fifth Circuit considers Jackson's appeal, the case joins a growing body of post-*Bruen* litigation challenging various aspects of federal and state gun laws. The court's decision will contribute to the evolving interpretation of Second Amendment rights in the modern legal landscape.