The Supreme Court has sidestepped a challenge to a federal law prohibiting felons from possessing firearms.

Instead of scheduling oral argument in the case filed by Lorenzo Garod Pierre, on Oct. 21, the court granted the petition and immediately overturned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruling that Pierre was appealing.

The Supreme Court did not provide reasons for its decision. No justices dissented.

The Supreme Court directed the 11th Circuit to reconsider its ruling in Pierre’s case in light of United States v. Rahimi, a decision the high court issued in June that the federal government said “clarified the methodology for determining whether a firearms regulation complies with the Second Amendment.”

In Rahimi, the justices upheld Section 922(g)(8) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, a federal law that bars people under domestic violence-related restraining orders from possessing firearms.

Specifically, they found that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution isn’t violated when an individual is disarmed after a court has found him to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another.

Pierre said in his petition that he was charged in July 2022 with violating Section 922(g)(1) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code for knowingly possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony. Court papers did not provide details of the prior felony conviction.

Pierre asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to throw out the felony-level indictment, arguing that it was “unconstitutional in light of” New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which the Supreme Court handed down in June 2022. In Bruen, the nation’s highest court held that firearms restrictions must have a historical analogue and that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms in public for self-defense.

A magistrate judge filed a report that recommended denying the motion to dismiss. Magistrate judges are appointed to assist federal district judges.

Pierre objected, and the district court refused to dismiss the charge, finding that prior 11th Circuit rulings “squarely foreclosed” the constitutional challenge and were not undermined by the Bruen precedent.

Pierre lodged an appeal with the 11th Circuit arguing that his conviction “as applied” ran afoul of the Second Amendment. In an as-applied challenge, a litigant argues that a statute or regulation is unconstitutional in the context of a specific case.

On March 12, the 11th Circuit affirmed the district court in a two-page decision, holding that the circuit court’s prior rulings were binding in the case.

Pierre argued in his petition that, since Bruen was decided, federal courts of appeals have been split on whether a “defendant may mount a challenge that his individual circumstances do not supply a basis, consistent with the Second Amendment, for stripping the right” to possess firearms.

The 11th Circuit says felons are “categorically ‘disqualified’ from exercising their Second Amendment right,” but the Seventh and Ninth circuits allow defendants to file as-applied challenges to charges under Section 922(g)(1).

The Supreme Court should grant review to resolve the circuit split, the petition states.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued in a Sept. 16 brief that the Supreme Court should grant the petition and send the case back to the 11th Circuit with instructions to review its ruling in light of Rahimi.

The Rahimi decision contains within it the proper legal standard for evaluating the Pierre case because it “clarified the methodology for determining whether a firearms regulation complies with the Second Amendment.”

And because the Supreme Court vacated judgments in five separate challenges to Section 922(g)(1) in July and sent those cases back to circuit courts for review in light of Rahimi, “consistent with that practice, the Court should grant the petition … in this case, vacate the court of appeals’ judgment, and remand for further consideration in light of Rahimi,” Prelogar said.

The Epoch Times reached out for comment to Pierre’s attorney, Brian Taylor Goldman of Holwell, Shuster, and Goldberg in New York City, and the U.S. Department of Justice but had received no replies as of publication time.

This article by Matthew Vadum appeared Oct. 27, 2024, in The Epoch Times.