Rehaif v. United States | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued April 23, 2019 Decided June 21, 2019 | |
Full case name | Hamid Mohamed Rehaif, Petitioner v. United States |
Docket no. | 17-9560 |
Citations | 588 U.S. ___ (more) 139 S. Ct. 2191; 204 L. Ed. 2d 594 |
Case history | |
Prior | United States v. Rehaif, 868 F.3d 907 (11th Cir. 2017); vacated, 888 F.3d 1138 (11th Cir. 2018); cert. granted, 139 S. Ct. 914 (2019). |
Holding | |
In a prosecution under 18 USC § 922(g) and § 924(a)(2), the Government must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Breyer, joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh |
Dissent | Alito, joined by Thomas |
Laws applied | |
18 U.S.C. § 922(g), 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) |
Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a case before the United States Supreme Court dealing with mens rea. The Court held that when a person is charged with possessing a gun while prohibited from doing so under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), the prosecution must prove both that the accused knew that they possessed a gun and that they knew they held the relevant status.[1]