Rehaif v. United States

Background

Petitioner was a foreign student whose school enrollment ended, and he remained in the United States. He later shot firearms at a firing range and was charged under a federal law that bans certain people from possessing guns, including aliens unlawfully in the country. At trial the judge told the jury the government did not need to prove the defendant knew his immigration status was unlawful, and the jury convicted him.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether the word 'knowingly' in the criminal statute applies both to possessing the gun and to belonging to the barred status. Relying on a long-standing presumption that criminal statutes require a mental state for elements that turn otherwise innocent conduct into crime, the Court read the statute’s text and history to require proof that a defendant knew both that he possessed the firearm and that he belonged to the prohibited category.

Real world impact

The ruling means prosecutors must prove a defendant’s knowledge of status in prosecutions under these gun-possession laws, at least for the status at issue here. The Court left open exactly how to prove such knowledge and noted the issue of harmless error for this case. The Court remanded the case to let lower courts decide whether the trial error was harmless. Lower courts must apply this rule on remand and may decide whether convictions survive.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissenting Justice warned the decision departs from the unanimous prior practice of the federal appeals courts, could unsettle many convictions, and will increase litigation over older cases.