Rehaif v. United States

Background

A man who entered the United States on a student visa lost his enrollment, remained in the country, and later shot firearms at a range. Federal prosecutors charged him under a law that bars certain people—including aliens unlawfully in the country—from possessing guns and a companion statute that punishes anyone who "knowingly violates" that ban. At trial the judge told the jury the Government did not have to prove the defendant knew he was unlawfully in the United States; the jury convicted and the appeals court affirmed.

Reasoning

The Court considered what the word "knowingly" in the companion statute covers. Relying on a longstanding presumption that criminal laws require a guilty mental state for elements that turn lawful conduct into a crime, the majority read "knowingly" to apply to both the act of possessing a gun and the defendant’s status (for example, being an alien unlawfully in the country). The opinion explains that ordinary grammar, the purpose of criminal law to punish a wrongful state of mind, and the statutory history support that reading; the Court excluded the technical jurisdictional element from the knowledge requirement. The majority therefore reversed the conviction and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Real world impact

The decision means prosecutors must prove a defendant knew both that he had a gun and that he belonged to a prohibited category. The Court left it to lower courts to decide whether the trial error was harmless in this case and did not resolve exactly how to prove knowledge of status for other categories in the statute.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent warned the ruling departs from decades of practice, may affect thousands of convictions, and will produce many new challenges and burdens on lower courts and prisons.