“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
A person convicted twice of felony drunk driving filed suit to invalidate the federal law that required his disarmament.
What happened in this case?
Edward Williams was convicted twice of the felony of driving while under the influence of alcohol. When he learned that federal law made it illegal for someone convicted of a felony to possess firearms, he filed a federal lawsuit seeking to have the law declared unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. A district court agreed, and the case went to the Third Circuit, where it was considered by the full court.
In October, Trump judge Paul Matey wrote an opinion in Williams v Attorney General that affirmed the decision below and declared that the federal felony firearms law was unconstitutional, at least as applied to felonies that did not involve violence or threats. All the other Trump judges on the court (Bibas, Porter, Phipps, Bove, and Mascott) agreed, as did several judges nominated by George W Bush. Biden nominees Arianna Freeman, Tamika Montgomery-Reeves, and Cindy Chung dissented in part, as did Obama judges Patty Shwartz, Felipe Restrepo, and Cheryl Krause . The majority maintained that under its version of the test used in recent pro-gun Supreme Court decisions, firearms restrictions are invalid if they do not seek to combat the use of firearms “to threaten civil society.”
Why did Judge Freeman dissent?
Judge Freeman pointed out that felony convictions that do not directly involve violence or threats may also pose a “credible threat to the physical safety of others,” such as convictions for drunk driving as in this case. At the very least, she pointed out, such convictions justify firearms restrictions. Obama judges Felipe Restrepo, Cheryl Krause, and Patty Shwartz dissented for similar reasons, and also maintained that Williams had improperly failed to seek administrative relief from the Justice Department before filing suit.
Why is this decision harmful?
This ruling by Judge Matey and made possible by other Trump judges significantly harms gun safety efforts in the Third Circuit, which includes Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware. As an en banc decision, it sets a troubling precedent nationwide on the validity of restricting gun possession by people convicted of felonies. The decision also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.