USA v. Mancilla
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Affirmed
The Fifth Circuit rejected Alvaro Alejandro Mancilla’s Second-Amendment, as-applied challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and affirmed his felon-in-possession conviction. Relying on its recent precedent in United States v. Kimble, the court held that Congress may categorically disarm persons convicted of drug-trafficking felonies without an individualized dangerousness assessment, finding § 922(g)(1) constitutional as applied to Mancilla.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether § 922(g)(1) may be applied categorically to felons (or felons with drug-trafficking/violent predicates) without an individualized determination of dangerousness after New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, or whether defendants are entitled to an as-applied, fact-specific dangerousness inquiry.
Circuit Positions
Categorical approach—§ 922(g)(1) is constitutional without individualized dangerousness findings (all felons or at least violent/drug-trafficking felons).
Individualized approach—courts must assess the particular defendant’s dangerousness; § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied absent such showing.
Conflict Summary
Several circuits (2d, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th) uphold § 922(g)(1) on a categorical basis, concluding that historical tradition permits permanent disarmament of all—or at least violent/drug-trafficking—felons, so no individualized assessment of dangerousness is required. By contrast, the 3d and 6th Circuits allow as-applied challenges and instruct district courts to examine the defendant’s entire criminal record to decide whether he remains dangerous before upholding § 922(g)(1).