In case of Rehaif who entered the United States on a student visa and later lost his immigration status, the Supreme Court held that the Government therefore must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and also that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm, and reversed Rehaif’s conviction

What was the charge against Mr. Rehaif?

Rehaif entered the United States on a student visa. When the university to which he was admitted dismissed him for poor performance, it advised him that he would lose his immigration status unless he enrolled elsewhere, which he did not do. He went to a shooting range where he purchased ammunition and practiced using the ranges firearms. The ammunition he bought came from out-of-state and the firearms he used were from Austria.

What law says?

Federal law declares it unlawful for an individual, unlawfully present in the United States, to possess a firearm or ammunition that has been transported or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce. A second statute makes it a federal crime to knowingly engage in such unlawful possession.

District court held him guilty without proving his unlawful present in the United States

At his trial, the U.S. district court advised the jury that the government did not have to prove that Rehaif knew that he was in the U.S. unlawfully. The jury convicted Rehaif, and the court sentenced him to prison for 18 months.

The U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed Rehaif’s conviction

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Eleventh Circuit) affirmed Rehaif’s conviction on several grounds. The Eleventh Circuit noted that conviction requires proof of three elements:

  • The defendant falls within one of the categories [of disqualified possessors] (the status element);
  • The defendant possessed a firearm or ammunition (the possession element); and
  • The possession was in or affecting [interstate or foreign] commerce [(the jurisdictional element)]. With regard to the status element, binding Eleventh Circuit case law dispensed with a mens rea requirement (sometimes referred to as scienter, state of mind, or knowledge requirement).

The Supreme Court reversed Rehaif’s conviction

The Supreme Court held that the Government therefore must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and also that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm, and reversed Rehaif’s conviction. Speaking for a majority of the Court, Justice Breyer pointed out that mens rea questions are first and foremost a matter of congressional intent. He noted that the longstanding presumption, traceable to the common law, that Congress intends to require a defendant to possess a culpable mental state regarding each of the statutory elements that criminalize otherwise innocent conduct. Nevertheless, he explained that the presumption does not necessarily apply to all of a crime elements.

If you have been charged in a criminal case

If you are facing criminal charges, you need a legal defense from an attorney like New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney Joel Silberman. He is dedicated to fighting for individuals that are facing Federal, State and Municipal charges.

At the Law Offices of Joel Silberman, no case is too big or too small. Whether you have been issued a summons for Municipal Court or been charged with a First Degree offense, you will receive the same aggressive and hard-hitting representation.

Call (201)-420-1913 today to schedule an appointment.