The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a Second Amendment challenge to federal felon firearm possession laws in *United States v. Jeffery*, according to court documents filed January 7, 2026. The case represents another test of how lower courts apply the Supreme Court's transformative *Bruen* decision to longstanding federal gun restrictions.
Robert Lawrence Jeffery appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon, violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The defendant argued that *New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen* (2022) rendered the federal statute unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to his specific circumstances.
The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Wiener, Willett, and Wilson, heard the appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The original prosecution was filed as case number 5:21-CR-437-1 in the Western District.
Jeffery's constitutional challenge centered on the Supreme Court's decision in *Bruen*, which established a new framework for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. The *Bruen* decision, issued in June 2022, significantly altered how courts analyze gun regulations by requiring the government to demonstrate that restrictions are consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The Supreme Court in *Bruen* rejected the two-step approach that many circuit courts had previously used to evaluate Second Amendment claims. Under the old framework, courts would first determine whether a law burdened conduct protected by the Second Amendment, then apply an appropriate level of scrutiny. *Bruen* replaced this analysis with a test requiring that gun regulations be "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
This shift has created uncertainty about the constitutionality of various federal and state gun laws, particularly those targeting specific categories of people like felons, domestic violence offenders, and individuals with mental health adjudications. Several federal courts have grappled with how to apply *Bruen*'s historical test to these prohibitions.
The federal statute at issue, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), prohibits any person "who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" from possessing firearms or ammunition. This provision has been a cornerstone of federal gun control efforts for decades, dating back to the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Legal scholars have debated whether felon firearm prohibitions can survive *Bruen*'s historical test. Supporters argue that disarming felons has deep historical roots in American and English law. Critics contend that broad categorical disarmament lacks sufficient historical precedent and violates the Second Amendment's text and original meaning.
The Government moved for summary affirmance in the case, suggesting confidence that existing precedent supports upholding felon firearm prohibitions even under *Bruen*. Alternatively, prosecutors requested additional time to file a full appellate brief addressing the constitutional arguments.
Jeffery's counsel took no position on the Government's procedural motions but conceded that his constitutional arguments face significant legal obstacles. The brief filing suggests that even Jeffery's legal team acknowledged the uphill nature of challenging well-established federal firearm restrictions.
The Fifth Circuit has emerged as a key battleground for post-*Bruen* Second Amendment litigation. The court's jurisdiction includes Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, states with significant gun ownership rates and strong Second Amendment advocacy communities. Previous Fifth Circuit decisions have shown varying approaches to applying *Bruen*'s framework to different categories of firearm regulations.
Federal courts nationwide continue wrestling with *Bruen*'s implications for existing gun laws. While some restrictions have been struck down, particularly those affecting law-abiding citizens, courts have generally been more receptive to maintaining prohibitions on firearm possession by convicted felons.
The Supreme Court in *Bruen* acknowledged that "nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States' 'shall-issue' licensing regimes" or other "presumptively lawful regulatory measures." However, the decision left significant questions about which specific regulations qualify as presumptively lawful.
The *Jeffery* case reflects broader tensions in Second Amendment jurisprudence as courts balance individual rights against public safety concerns. Federal prosecutors have defended felon firearm prohibitions as essential tools for reducing gun violence and protecting communities from armed recidivism.
The Fifth Circuit's handling of this appeal will likely influence similar challenges in other jurisdictions. As one of the most conservative federal appellate courts, the Fifth Circuit's approach to post-*Bruen* Second Amendment questions carries particular weight among gun rights advocates and legal observers.
Court documents indicate the case was processed on the Fifth Circuit's summary calendar, suggesting the panel viewed the legal issues as sufficiently straightforward to warrant expedited resolution without full briefing and oral argument.