Shifting Legal Landscape: How Recent Court Rulings Are Challenging Federal Felon-in-Possession Laws

As a sentencing mitigation specialist, I make it my business to stay ahead of the legal shifts that impact federal defendants, particularly those charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the federal statute that prohibits felons from possessing firearms.

Over the past year, several key decisions from the Seventh Circuit  have cast serious doubt on the broad application of this law. Courts are now scrutinizing whether it aligns with the historical tradition of firearm regulation, a standard set by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022).

These developments open the door for new legal challenges, better sentencing arguments, and even case dismissals in certain situations. Here’s what you need to know.

Seventh Circuit Cases: A Trend Toward Striking Down § 922(g)(1) Charges

1. United States v. Griffin, 704 F. Supp. 3d 851 (N.D. Ill. 2023)

In Griffin, the court dismissed a felon-in-possession charge after finding that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional as applied to the defendant. The ruling relied heavily on Bruen, which requires firearm laws to be consistent with historical regulations.

📌 Why this matters: Courts are questioning whether non-violent felons should automatically be stripped of their Second Amendment rights.

2. United States v. Prince, 700 F. Supp. 3d 663 (N.D. Ill. 2023)

Another major win for defendants, Prince resulted in the dismissal of a § 922(g)(1) indictment. The court ruled that the government failed to prove that restricting all felons from firearm possession was deeply rooted in historical tradition.

📌 Why this matters: This case reinforces the idea that one-size-fits-all gun bans may not hold up under Bruen’s historical analysis.

3. Atkinson v. Garland, 70 F.4th 1018 (7th Cir. 2023)

In this Seventh Circuit decision, the court ruled that § 922(g)(1) may be unconstitutional in some cases, signaling that challenges to this law are gaining serious traction at the appellate level.

📌 Why this matters: The fact that the Seventh Circuit itself is questioning the law makes it more likely that future defendants will win their challenges.

What This Means for Sentencing Mitigation

For those of us working in federal sentencing advocacy, these cases are a game changer. Here’s how they can be used in sentencing and pre-trial strategies:

✅ Challenging the Constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) – Defense teams can argue that § 922(g)(1) is no longer legally sound, especially for non-violent felons.

✅ Pushing for As-Applied Challenges – Courts are now willing to entertain the idea that § 922(g)(1) should not apply universally. If a client has no violent history, this could be a powerful argument.

✅ Strengthening Plea Negotiations – With courts striking down indictments, prosecutors may be more willing to offer reduced charges or more favorable plea deals.

✅ Shaping Sentencing Arguments – Even if outright dismissal isn’t possible, these cases weaken the government’s argument for harsh sentences, making mitigation efforts more effective.

Final Thoughts

The legal landscape around felon-in-possession charges is shifting. Courts are taking Bruen seriously, and the Seventh Circuit is at the forefront of limiting the government’s ability to use § 922(g)(1) as a blanket restriction.

For federal defendants, this presents a real opportunity to challenge their charges—or, at the very least, argue for a more lenient sentence.

If you’re a defense attorney or a federal defendant looking for sentencing mitigation strategies, now is the time to leverage these legal developments. The groundwork has already been laid in cases like Griffin, Prince, and Atkinson. The question is: how will you use it?

 Need help crafting a sentencing memorandum? I specialize in highlighting favorable case law and building strong mitigation arguments to secure the best possible outcomes. Let’s talk.