In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time in Rehaif v. United States that in a prosecution under 18 U. S. C. §922(g) and §924(a)(2), the government must prove that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm. Previous coverage available here. Following Rehaif, many such defendants challenged their convictions.
On Monday, in Greer v. United States and United States v. Gary, the Supreme Court limited hopes for new trials when it ruled that people convicted of being a felon-in-possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) after the Rehaif decision are not entitled to a new trial or plea hearing unless they “make[] a sufficient argument or representation on appeal that he would have presented evidence at trial that he did not in fact know he was a felon.”
In Monday’s ruling, the court held that neither Gregory Greer nor Michael Andrew Gary had carried their burden of showing a “reasonable probability” that they would not have been convicted had the rule of Rehaif been observed in their cases. Moreover, neither of them argued or made a representation on appeal that they would have presented evidence at trial that they did not, in fact, realize that they were felons.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the court in Greer but dissented in Gary, saying that she would have remanded the latter case to allow the lower courts to rule in the first instance whether Gary satisfied the majority’s articulated standard.