Rehaif v. United States

The case asked what the word "knowingly" means in a federal gun-possession law. The Supreme Court said the government must prove both that a person knew he possessed a gun and that he knew he was in a barred category, such as being unlawfully in the United States.

The Court decided that the government must prove knowledge of both possession and prohibited status, but the prompt does not provide the vote count or opinion lineup.

This makes these prosecutions harder for the government in some cases. For example, a prosecutor must now show the defendant knew his immigration or other barred status, not just that he had the gun.

The Supreme Court has finished its work in this case. The practical next step is for lower courts and prosecutors to apply this reading of the law in future cases and any remaining proceedings.

The dispute was over what the word "knowingly" covers in the federal gun law. The Court said it covers both gun possession and barred status.

Prosecutors must prove more than simple possession. They must also show the defendant knew the status that legally barred gun possession.

The Court's review is over. Lower courts must use this interpretation when handling similar federal gun-possession cases.