Background
Nacorian Lee Taylor was convicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was sentenced to 84 months in prison. On appeal to the Fifth Circuit, Taylor raised three categories of constitutional and statutory objections to his conviction.
Taylor’s primary argument challenged the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) both on its face and as applied to him under the framework established by New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). He also contended that the statute’s “in or affecting commerce” element required more than the firearm’s past interstate movement, and that the statute exceeded Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause. Notably, Taylor conceded that each of these arguments was foreclosed by existing Fifth Circuit precedent.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit, sitting per curiam, granted summary affirmance of the district court’s judgment. The court found Taylor’s facial constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1) foreclosed by United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2822 (2025). His as-applied constitutional challenge was likewise foreclosed by United States v. Schnur, 132 F.4th 863 (5th Cir. 2025), and United States v. Bullock, 123 F.4th 183 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 146 S. Ct. 255 (2025).
The court also rejected Taylor’s Commerce Clause arguments as foreclosed by United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143 (5th Cir. 2013), and United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 1996). Because all of Taylor’s arguments were controlled by binding Fifth Circuit precedent, the court determined that summary affirmance was appropriate and affirmed the conviction without further substantive analysis.
Key Takeaways
- Convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for felon in possession are constitutionally sound both on their face and as applied under Bruen, per established Fifth Circuit precedent.
- The statute’s interstate commerce requirement is satisfied by a firearm’s past movement in interstate commerce; no additional showing is required.
- Section 922(g)(1) is a valid exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause authority and does not exceed constitutional limits.
- Summary affirmance is an appropriate remedy when an appellant’s arguments are entirely foreclosed by settled precedent.
Why It Matters
This decision represents a straightforward application of settled law and reflects the Fifth Circuit’s consistent position that felon-in-possession prohibitions withstand constitutional scrutiny. Despite the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Bruen, which established a new framework for Second Amendment challenges, the Fifth Circuit has repeatedly rejected both facial and as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(1). This opinion reinforces that framework and provides guidance that such prohibitions are not vulnerable to constitutional attack in the Fifth Circuit.
The decision also illustrates how summary affirmance operates when an appellant’s claims are entirely controlled by existing precedent. By conceding that his arguments were foreclosed, Taylor presumably sought appellate review on record-development grounds or to preserve issues for potential Supreme Court review, but the Fifth Circuit’s summary disposition prevented any further development of the argument.