United States v. William Andrew Scott

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the jurisdictional element of the statute immunizes § 922(g)(1) from facial constitutional attack
• holding that “the jurisdictional element of the statute, i.e., the requirement that the felon ‘possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition,’ immunizes § 922(g)(1) from [a] facial constitutional attack”
• holding that “the jurisdic- tional element of the statute, i.e., the requirement that the felon ‘possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition,’ immunizes § 922(g)(1) from [a] facial constitutional attack”
• holding that “the jurisdic- tional element of the statute, i.e., the requirement that the felon ‘possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition,’ immunizes § 922(g)(1) from [a] facial constitutional attack”
• holding that the Supreme Court decisions in Lopez, Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000), and Morrison had not modified or overturned Eleventh Circuit precedent upholding the felon-in-possession statute under Congress’s Commerce Clause Power
• holding that section 922(g) was not unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).