USA v. Derby Clerfe

Circuit 3Aug 10, 2026

Split Score

SplitScore: 66/100

Case Summary

Disposition

Affirmed

Derby Clerfe pleaded guilty to conspiring to export nine handguns to Haiti without the required export paperwork and appealed, raising Second Amendment and non-delegation challenges. The Third Circuit rejected both claims—holding that exporting firearms abroad is not protected conduct under the Second Amendment and that the Arms Export Control Act’s delegation to the President passes even heightened non-delegation scrutiny—and therefore affirmed Clerfe’s conviction.

View Full Opinion Document (PDF)

Circuit Split Identified

Legal Issue

Whether—and under what test—the Second Amendment's plain text extends to ancillary or corollary conduct (such as training, acquisition, export, etc.) after the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Circuit Positions

Circuit 2Circuit 9

Ancillary conduct is covered when the challenged regulation 'meaningfully constrains' the core right to keep and bear arms (meaningful-constraint test).

Circuit 6

Ancillary conduct is covered only if the regulation 'restricts conduct necessary to effectuate' the core right (necessary-to-effectuate test).

Circuit 3(this circuit)

Ancillary conduct is not covered unless the regulation actually hinders the ability to possess or carry weapons; exporting arms abroad is therefore outside the Second Amendment (Third Circuit's position).

Conflict Summary

Post-Bruen, circuits disagree on the standard for deciding when a regulation of ancillary firearms activity implicates the Second Amendment. The Ninth and Second Circuits apply a 'meaningfully constrains' test, holding that ancillary conduct is protected if the challenged regulation meaningfully limits the core right to keep and bear arms. The Sixth Circuit uses a narrower 'necessary to effectuate' test, protecting only conduct strictly necessary to exercise the core right. The Third Circuit, in this opinion, acknowledges implied corollary rights but holds that a regulation falls outside the Amendment unless it actually hinders a person's ability to possess or carry firearms, thereby declining to adopt either articulated test and effectively taking a more restrictive position.

Parties & Counsel

Parties

Appellant:Derby Clerfe
Appellee:United States of America

Legal Counsel

Appellant:Stacie M. Fahsel (argued), Samantha Stern – Office of the Federal Public Defender, Pittsburgh, PA
Appellee:Adam N. Hallowell (argued), Laura S. Irwin – Office of the United States Attorney, Pittsburgh, PA