“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 man convicted twice of driving while intoxicated filed suit challenging the federal law that prohibits people convicted of a felony from possessing firearms.
What happened in this case?
Edward Williams was convicted twice of driving while intoxicated in Pennsylania, which is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. When he learned that federal law prohibited him from possessing firearms as a result of his conviction, he filed suit ro invalidate the firearms law as applied to him under the Second Amendment.
A district court granted summary judgment in his favor, and the case then went to the Third Circuit. In October, Trump judge Paul Matey wrote an opinion for the full court in Williams v Attorney General that affirmed the decision below and determined that the federal firearms law was unconstitutional, at least as applied to felonies that are not violent or involve threats of violence. All five other Trump judges on the Third Circuit joined the opinion (Bibas, Porter, Phipps, Bove and Mascott) as did George W Bush judge Thomas Hardiman. Biden judges Freeman, Montgomery-Reeves, and Chung dissented, while Obama judges Shwartz, Krause and Restrepo dissented in part. George W Bush judge Chagaras and Obama judge Krause concurred in part. The majority opinion was based primarily on recent Supreme Court decisions expanding rights under the Second Amendment and striking down gun laws, as in the Bruen decision
Why did Judge Freeman dissent?
Based on a careful review of the record and past precedent, Judge Freeman strongly disagreed with the majority’s view that only felony convictions involving “violence or threats” can properly disqualify someone from possessing firearms. Other convictions that “show a person poses a credible threat to the physical safety of others” like the drunk driving convictions here, she explained, should similarly be a permissible basis for “disarmament.”
Why is this decision harmful?
The decision by Trump judge Matey, joined by all the other Trump judges on the Third Circuit, clearly harms gun safety, particularly in the Third Circuit, which includes Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. More such damage is feared from pending cases to be decided by the Supreme Court. 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.