Scott, proceeding pro se, contended that the court's prior decision in United States v. Dubois was wrongly decided and that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The government responded by moving for summary affirmance, arguing its position was clearly right as a matter of law.
The court reviewed the constitutional challenge de novo, noting that factual, as-applied challenges generally require a developed factual record. However, the Eleventh Circuit has long held that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional, even if a felon possesses a firearm purely for self-defense or within the home.
In United States v. Rozier, the court established that prohibiting felons from possessing firearms is a presumptively lawful longstanding prohibition. The court emphasized that Heller did not cast doubt on such prohibitions or suggest that statutes disqualifying felons from firearm possession under any circumstances offend the Second Amendment.
Although the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen replaced means-end scrutiny with a text-and-history test, the Eleventh Circuit concluded in Dubois II that Bruen did not abrogate Rozier. The court reasoned that it would require clearer instruction from the Supreme Court before reconsidering the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1).
The Supreme Court's subsequent decision in United States v. Rahimi upheld a different subsection of the felon-in-possession statute, § 922(g)(8), by referencing Heller and noting that prohibitions on felons' possession of firearms remain presumptively lawful. The Eleventh Circuit determined that Rahimi did not undermine the binding authority of Rozier.
Under the prior-panel-precedent rule, the court is bound by Rozier and Dubois II unless overruled by the Supreme Court or the court sitting en banc. The court has categorically rejected any exception to the prior panel precedent rule based upon a perceived defect in the prior panel's reasoning or analysis as it relates to the law in existence at that time.
Because the government's position was clearly right as a matter of law, the Eleventh Circuit granted the motion for summary affirmance and affirmed Scott's conviction.