Gun rights after felony convictions
Celestine v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Petition Pending
Awaiting an order on the petition
- What it’s about
- Michael Celestine’s petition challenges a federal law barring certain people from possessing firearms, arguing that it exceeds Congress’s commerce power, is too vague, or violates the Second Amendment.
- What's at stake
- Whether the Supreme Court will consider Celestine’s challenges to the federal law remains unresolved.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The petition was distributed for a Supreme Court conference; that step is not a decision to hear the case.
The dispute concerns a federal law that bars certain people from possessing firearms.
Question presented
1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on mere firearm possession exceeds the scope of Congress’s power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, both facially and applied to Mr. Celestine and, relatedly, whether this Court should revisit Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 575 (1977), in light of the Court’s more recent Commerce Clause precedent. 2. Whether § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutionally vague, either facially or as applied to Mr. Celestine, and, more fundamentally, whether a statute prohibiting conduct protected by the Second Amendment should be subject to facial or as-applied void-for-vagueness scrutiny. 3. Whether § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, either facially or as applied to Mr. Celestine.
What happens next
The next step is for the Court to decide whether to hear the petition. The conference distribution does not guarantee a decision date, and no oral argument is scheduled.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Brief added: Petition
More questions
- What arguments does Celestine make?
- He argues that the law exceeds Congress’s power over commerce, is too vague, and violates the Second Amendment; he also asks the Court to revisit Scarborough v. United States.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.