The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has reaffirmed that illegal aliens do not have rights under the Second Amendment, maintaining a prohibition against their possession of firearms or ammunition.

This ruling, issued by a three-judge panel on Tuesday, upholds the decision in United States v. Portillo-Munoz and confirms that recent legal challenges have not altered this interpretation, much to the relief of conservatives, as Breitbart reports.

The case in question involved Jose Paz Medina-Cantu, an illegal alien who was arrested on July 13, 2022, for possession of a firearm and ammunition, alongside charges related to illegal reentry into the United States.

Following his arrest, Medina-Cantu sought to challenge the charges related to firearm possession by invoking the Bruen decision of 2022, which significantly expanded gun rights under the Second Amendment. However, the Fifth Circuit rejected this argument.

Court Cites Precedent in Upholding Ruling

In its ruling, the Fifth Circuit panel emphasized that the prohibition against illegal aliens possessing firearms, as outlined in Portillo-Munoz, remains constitutional.

The court clarified that the phrase "the people" within the Second Amendment does not extend to individuals unlawfully present in the United States. This interpretation was crucial in reaffirming that Medina-Cantu's challenge could not succeed.

The panel further referenced the recent Supreme Court decision in United States v. Rahimi (2024) to bolster their conclusion.

Despite the implications of Rahimi, which some might have seen as potentially impactful to Second Amendment jurisprudence, the Fifth Circuit made clear that it does not alter the standing prohibition on illegal aliens possessing firearms.

Medina-Cantu's Legal Arguments Rejected

Medina-Cantu's defense hinged on the argument that the precedent set by Portillo-Munoz should be reconsidered in light of Bruen.

However, the court dismissed this notion, noting that Bruen did not address or alter the established interpretation that "the people" referenced in the Second Amendment does not include illegal aliens.

The court’s decision highlights a consistent judicial approach to the issue, underscoring that changes in broader Second Amendment law do not necessarily impact specific prohibitions like those at the heart of Medina-Cantu’s case.

Department of Justice Supports the Ruling

In support of the court's ruling, the U.S. Government submitted a supplemental letter brief, dated July 31, addressing the potential impact of Rahimi.

The Department of Justice argued that the prohibition on illegal aliens owning firearms, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), remains constitutional and is unaffected by the Rahimi decision. This letter reinforced the court's stance, aligning the executive branch's perspective with that of the judiciary.

The letter underscored the government's position that the rights afforded by the Second Amendment are explicitly tied to lawful citizenship or residency, further supporting the view that Medina-Cantu’s case lacked merit. The DOJ's stance was instrumental in providing a comprehensive context to the court’s final ruling.

Panel Stresses Constitutional Interpretation

The Fifth Circuit's ruling not only reinforced existing law but also clarified the broader implications for future cases involving Second Amendment rights and non-citizens. By upholding Portillo-Munoz and dismissing Medina-Cantu’s arguments, the court sent a clear message about the boundaries of Second Amendment protections.

The ruling is expected to have a lasting impact on how courts interpret the rights of non-citizens under the U.S. Constitution, particularly in areas concerning the intersection of immigration status and constitutional rights. The reaffirmation that illegal aliens are excluded from “the people” as referenced in the Second Amendment sets a precedent likely to influence future legal challenges.

Conclusion: Court's Decision Aligns with Established Precedent

In conclusion, the Fifth Circuit's ruling solidifies the legal understanding that illegal aliens do not have rights under the Second Amendment.

The court's decision, rooted in precedent and reinforced by the U.S. Government’s position, maintains that prohibitions on firearm possession by illegal aliens are constitutional.

This ruling not only upholds the decision in Portillo-Munoz but also sets a clear standard for interpreting Second Amendment rights in the context of immigration status.