Supreme Court sides with immigrant in gun possession case

The Supreme Court on Friday found that prosecutors have to prove that an individual alleged to have illegally possessed a firearm must know that they are part of a group banned from having the gun in the first place.

In a 7-2 ruling, the justices sided with United Arab Emirates citizen Hamid Rehaif, who shot firearms at a gun range after he was dismissed from college over bad grades and told that his immigration status under his student visa would be terminated.
ADVERTISEMENT

Federal law bans undocumented immigrants from possessing guns, and prosecutors charged Rehaif with that crime. The judge in the case told the jury that prosecutors did not need to prove that Rehaif knew he was in the country illegally, which he disputed.

Justice Stephen BreyerStephen BreyerSenate panel votes to make women register for draft Biden's belated filibuster decision: A pretense of principle at work Klobuchar: If Breyer is going to retire from Supreme Court, it should be sooner rather than later MORE wrote in the majority opinion that prosecutors do need to prove that Rehaif knew of his immigration status, and that he would therefore be banned from possessing a gun.

"To convict a defendant, the government therefore must show that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and also that he knew he had the relevant status when he possessed it," Breyer wrote.

Justices Ruth Bader GinsburgRuth Bader GinsburgBill would honor Ginsburg, O'Connor with statues at Capitol Supreme Court's approval rating dips to 49 percent  Anti-abortion movement eyes its holy grail MORE, Sonia SotomayorSonia SotomayorSenate panel votes to make women register for draft No reason to pack the court Supreme Court ruling opens door to more campaign finance challenges MORE, Elena KaganElena KaganCongress should butt out of Supreme Court's business No reason to pack the court American freedom is on the line MORE, Neil GorsuchNeil GorsuchNo reason to pack the court Democrats under new pressure to break voting rights stalemate Trump 'very disappointed' in Kavanaugh votes: 'Where would he be without me?' MORE, Brett KavanaughBrett Michael KavanaughSarah Palin says she's praying about running for Senate against Murkowski Top House Democrats call on Biden administration to extend eviction moratorium On The Money: Biden asks Congress to extend eviction ban with days until expiration | Economic growth rose to 6.5 percent annual rate in second quarter MORE and Chief Justice John Roberts joined the majority opinion. 

Right-leaning Justices Samuel AlitoSamuel Alito'Freedom-loving' conservatives stoked latest round of infection and death Bill would honor Ginsburg, O'Connor with statues at Capitol No reason to pack the court MORE and Clarence ThomasClarence ThomasAn obscure Supreme Court ruling is a cautionary tale of federal power Overnight Health Care: St. Louis reimposes mask mandate | Florida asks Supreme Court to block CDC's limits on cruise ship industry Florida asks Supreme Court to block CDC's limits on cruise ship industry MORE dissented.

In the majority opinion, Breyer pushed back against the government's argument that lawmakers don't typically require prosecuted individuals to know their own status. He said the statutes invoked by the government in arguments "differ significantly from the provisions at issue here."

"As we have said, we normally presume that Congress did not intend to impose criminal liability on persons who, due to lack of knowledge, did not have a wrongful mental state. And we doubt that the obligation to prove a defendant's knowledge of his status would be as burdensome as the government suggests," the opinion reads.

Alito was highly critical of the ruling in the dissenting opinion, noting that the federal gun statute at hand applies to individuals like convicted felons, stalkers and those who commit acts of domestic violence. 

"Today's decision will make it significantly harder to convict persons falling into some of these categories, and the decision will create a mountain of problems with respect to the thousands of prisoners currently serving terms" for convictions under that law, he argued.

Alito also took issue with the argument that Rehaif may not have known he was in the country illegally, and criticized the court for agreeing to hear the case in the first place.

And he warned that the ruling could have ramifications for future cases on immigration.

"Serious problems will also result from requiring proof that an alien actually knew—not should have known or even strongly suspected but actually knew—that his continued presence in the country was illegal," Alito wrote.