United States v. Duarte: Ninth Circuit Upholds Felon Firearm Ban Amid Evolving Second Amendment Jurisprudence

On May 9, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a significant en banc decision in United States v. Duarte, affirming the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits felons from possessing firearms. This ruling comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decisions in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) and United States v. Rahimi (2024), which have reshaped the legal landscape concerning Second Amendment rights.

Background of the Case

Steven Duarte, a California resident with five prior non-violent felony convictions—including vandalism and evading a peace officer—was observed by police in 2020 discarding a handgun from a moving vehicle. He was subsequently charged and convicted under § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Duarte appealed his conviction, arguing that, in light of Bruen, the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him.

Initially, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit agreed with Duarte, vacating his conviction and holding that § 922(g)(1) violated the Second Amendment when applied to non-violent felons like him. However, the government petitioned for and was granted an en banc rehearing, leading to the May 2025 decision.

The En Banc Decision

In an 11-judge en banc panel, the Ninth Circuit reversed the earlier panel decision, affirming Duarte’s conviction. The majority opinion, authored by Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, held that the government’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons aligns with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, as required by Bruen.

The court emphasized that the Second Amendment’s protections are not absolute and that historical precedent supports the disarmament of individuals who have committed serious crimes. The majority concluded that § 922(g)(1) is not unconstitutional as applied to non-violent felons like Duarte.Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals+1sentencing.typepad.com+1

Concurring and Dissenting Opinions

Judge R. Nelson’s Concurrence

Judge R. Nelson, joined by Judge Ikuta, concurred in the judgment but argued that the court should have applied plain error review since Duarte did not raise his Second Amendment challenge at the district court level. Under this standard, Nelson found no plain error and would have upheld the conviction without reaching the constitutional question.

Judge Collins’s Concurrence

Judge Collins also concurred in the judgment, agreeing that Duarte’s as-applied challenge fails even under de novo review. However, he disagreed with the majority’s reliance on certain historical traditions, suggesting that the combination of legislative authority and historical precedent justifies the statute’s application.

Judge VanDyke’s Partial Dissent

Judge VanDyke, joined in part by Judges Ikuta and R. Nelson, concurred and dissented. He criticized the majority for granting legislatures broad authority to disarm individuals labeled as felons, regardless of the nature of their offenses. VanDyke argued that this approach undermines the Second Amendment’s protections and allows for the disarmament of individuals without a specific showing of dangerousness.

Implications of the Decision

The Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in United States v. Duarte reinforces the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) and aligns with similar rulings from other federal appellate courts. This decision underscores the judiciary’s ongoing efforts to interpret and apply the Second Amendment in light of recent Supreme Court precedents.

While the ruling affirms the government’s authority to restrict firearm possession by felons, it also highlights the complexities involved in balancing individual rights with public safety concerns. As courts continue to navigate the evolving landscape of Second Amendment jurisprudence, cases like Duarte will play a crucial role in shaping the boundaries of constitutional protections.