United States v. Milder Escobar-Temal -Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville

Circuit 6Dec 15, 2025

Split Score

SplitScore: 90/100

Case Summary

Disposition

Affirmed

The Sixth Circuit rejected Milder Escobar-Temal’s challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), holding that although some undocumented aliens may fall within the Second Amendment’s reference to “the people,” a robust historical tradition of disarming persons lacking allegiance to the sovereign supports the statute. Accordingly, the court affirmed Escobar-Temal’s conviction for possessing firearms while unlawfully present in the United States.

View Full Opinion Document (PDF)

Circuit Split Identified

Legal Issue

Whether unlawful or undocumented aliens are included within "the people" protected by the Second Amendment, and thus whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A)’s firearms prohibition implicates a constitutional right.

Circuit Positions

Circuit 4Circuit 5Circuit 8

Undocumented/illegal aliens are NOT part of "the people" under the Second Amendment; § 922(g)(5)(A) therefore does not implicate the right to keep and bear arms.

Circuit 2Circuit 6(this circuit)Circuit 7Circuit 9Circuit 10Circuit 11

Undocumented/illegal aliens can be part of "the people" when they have substantial ties to the national community; even so, the historical record justifies disarming them, so § 922(g)(5)(A) is constitutional.

Conflict Summary

Several circuits hold that undocumented aliens are not part of the Second-Amendment ‘people’ and therefore have no protected right to possess firearms, while others conclude (or assume without deciding) that undocumented aliens with substantial U.S. connections fall within ‘the people’ but nevertheless uphold § 922(g)(5)(A) on historical-tradition grounds. The Sixth Circuit in this opinion squarely adopts the latter view, expressly rejecting the categorical-exclusion approach adopted by the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits.

Parties & Counsel

Parties

Appellant:Milder Escobar-Temal
Appellee:United States of America

Legal Counsel

Appellant:Alex Thomason, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Nashville, TN (argued); Caryll S. Alpert on brief
Appellee:Nicholas J. Goldin (argued) and Joseph Montminy, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Nashville, TN