Monk v. United States et al

On August 7, 2023, plaintiff Monk, previously convicted of a non-violent felony and permanently barred from possessing firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), initiated a civil action against the United States, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and ATF Director Steven Dettelbach. Monk contended that the lifetime firearms prohibition violated his Second Amendment rights, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires the government to demonstrate that modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. The government moved to dismiss, arguing that disarming convicted felons is deeply rooted in American history. The district court examined historical analogues and evaluated whether non-violent felons fall within the scope of "the people" protected by the Second Amendment.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of Monk, holding that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional as applied to a non-violent offender, and permanently enjoined the government from enforcing the felon-in-possession ban against him.

Whether the permanent federal prohibition on firearm possession by an individual convicted of a non-violent felony, as applied under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution under the historical tradition test established in NYSRPA v. Bruen.

The ruling deepened the post-Bruen circuit split over the constitutionality of felon-in-possession laws, emboldened similar challenges by non-violent felons nationwide, and contributed to the legal uncertainty that prompted the Supreme Court to clarify the scope of Second Amendment protections in subsequent cases.