“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.
Nearly all the Trump judges on the Fifth Circuit expressed support for a constitutional right to possess machine guns in an April 2026 case called United States v. Wilson.
What was this case about?
Jamaion Wilson shot someone with a gun that was modified to fire like a machine gun. He was convicted of violating a federal law banning the possession of machine guns. On appeal, he argued that he has a Second Amendment right to own a machine gun.
What happened at the Fifth Circuit?
The case was first heard by a three-judge panel. In January 2026, the panel ruled against Wilson. In doing so, they specifically noted that they were bound by a 2026 Fifth Circuit case called Hollis v. Lynch, which had held that machine guns are not covered by the Second Amendment.
A Fifth Circuit judge asked the entire court to rehear the case en banc, which would make it possible to overturn Hollis.
The court voted 10-7 against rehearing. Trump judges Kyle Duncan, Kurt Engelhardt, James Ho, and Andrew Oldham voted to rehear the case. Trump judges Don Willett and Cory Wilson voted against rehearing. But this was only a temporary victory for reasonable laws against gun violence.
Willet wrote separately to explain that his vote against rehearing was not based on a belief that Hollis had been rightly decided. In fact, he called it “dubious.” Rather, it was based on how Wilson had pleaded the issue. Willett thought another case would better present the issue. He made clear that he believes the court “should” consider whether to overturn its precedent and find that machine gun ownership is protected by the Second Amendment.
Bush Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, who had also voted against rehearing, joined Willet’s statement. So that suggests nine judges, a majority of the circuit, believe there is a constitutional right to own a machine gun.
Trump Judge Andrew Oldham (joined by Trump Judge James Ho) wrote a dissent. He would have the court reconsider the Hollis precedent now. Oldham wrote that “there is no historical justification for banning machine guns” and that a categorical ban on machine guns “cannot be reconciled with Supreme Court precedent.”
Ho wrote his own concurrence, where he accused those who disagree with him of an irrational fear of firearms.
What is the impact of this case?
For the moment, it is still illegal to own a machine gun in states within the Fifth Circuit: Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. But it seems that won’t last long, with the Trump judges making a dramatic change in the law possible. This ruling illustrates the importance of our federal courts to protecting our safety and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.