The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that rejected constitutional challenges to the federal law prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms in *United States v. Hensley*, decided Jan. 13, 2026.

Terry Dee Hensley pleaded guilty under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. After entering his guilty plea, Hensley moved to dismiss his bill of information and plea agreement, raising both facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to Section 922(g)(1).

The district court denied Hensley's motion to dismiss, prompting his appeal to the Fifth Circuit. In his appeal brief, Hensley argued that Section 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to his specific circumstances and that the federal statute exceeds Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause.

The government responded that Hensley's plea agreement included an appeal waiver that barred his constitutional challenge. However, the three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Southwick, Higginson, and Wilson chose not to enforce the appeal waiver provision.

In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the court stated it would "exercise our discretion not to enforce the appeal waiver and decide the case on the merits instead" due to "the obvious insufficiency of Hensley's allegations of errors." The court cited *United States v. Graves* as precedent for this approach.

Section 922(g)(1) of the federal criminal code makes it unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a felony to possess firearms or ammunition that have been shipped or transported in interstate commerce. The statute has faced numerous constitutional challenges since the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in *District of Columbia v. Heller*, which recognized an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

Hensley's Second Amendment challenge appears to have argued that the blanket prohibition on firearm possession by all convicted felons violates his constitutional rights. Such as-applied challenges typically argue that while the statute may be constitutional in general, it violates the Second Amendment when applied to a specific defendant's circumstances.

His Commerce Clause challenge likely contested Congress's authority to regulate firearm possession by felons under its power to regulate interstate commerce. This type of challenge has generally been unsuccessful in federal courts, which have consistently held that Congress has authority to regulate firearms that have moved in interstate commerce.

The Fifth Circuit's decision to address the merits despite the appeal waiver suggests the court found Hensley's constitutional arguments particularly weak. Appeal waivers in federal plea agreements are generally enforceable, but courts retain discretion to address constitutional challenges when doing so serves judicial efficiency.

The court's characterization of Hensley's allegations as having "obvious insufficiency" indicates the panel viewed his constitutional arguments as lacking merit. Federal courts have generally upheld Section 922(g)(1) against both Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenges in the post-*Heller* era.

The Supreme Court's recent decision in *New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen* (2022) established a new framework for evaluating Second Amendment challenges, requiring courts to determine whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. However, prohibitions on firearm possession by convicted felons have deep historical roots and have generally survived constitutional scrutiny under the new *Bruen* standard.

The case originated in the Northern District of Texas under case number 4:24-CR-43-1. The Fifth Circuit's opinion was designated as unpublished under Circuit Rule 47.5, meaning it cannot be cited as binding precedent but may be cited for its persuasive value.

The ruling reflects the continued judicial reluctance to invalidate federal felon-in-possession laws, which are among the most frequently prosecuted federal firearms offenses. These cases often arise during traffic stops, searches incident to arrest, or other law enforcement encounters where prohibited persons are found with firearms.

Hensley's case demonstrates the challenges defendants face in mounting constitutional challenges to well-established federal firearms laws, particularly when those challenges are raised after entering guilty pleas with appeal waivers. The Fifth Circuit's decision to reach the merits despite the waiver, only to reject the constitutional arguments, underscores the strength of precedent supporting Section 922(g)(1)'s constitutionality.

The opinion provides another data point in the ongoing judicial response to Second Amendment challenges in the post-*Bruen* landscape, suggesting that core federal firearms prohibitions like the felon-in-possession statute remain constitutionally secure despite evolving Second Amendment jurisprudence.