Shortly after President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden was indicted on three federal charges related to firearms, his lawyers made it clear that they want to use Justice Clarence Thomas’ recent Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen to challenge the indictment. 

In the 2022 decision, Justice Thomas ruled that when assessing the validity of gun control laws, judges must not merely accept that the regulation serves an important purpose; instead, they should consider the law’s alignment with historical tradition and textual foundations.

In the 6-3 decision, Thomas asserted that only firearm regulations consistent with the nation’s historical tradition can be legally in line with the unambiguous mandate of the Second Amendment.

Despite facing criticism from President Joe Biden and supporters of stricter gun laws, this ruling could potentially provide legal avenues for Hunter Biden to counter the unprecedented criminal charges against a president’s offspring.

Notably, the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals has employed Justice Thomas’s decision to declare unconstitutional the gun possession law central to Hunter Biden’s case. Furthermore, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a related case in November, focusing on who can be prohibited from owning firearms.

Justice Thomas’ stance in Bruen might excite gun rights advocates and disappoint proponents of gun regulation. However, it also holds potential benefits for various criminal defendants, including Hunter Biden.

Hunter Biden’s indictment involves three gun-related charges, including false statements on federal firearms forms and the prohibition of firearm possession by unlawful users of controlled substances. He has entered a plea of not guilty.

Although Delaware, where the charges were filed, is not within the jurisdiction of the 5th Circuit, legal experts believe that Hunter Biden’s case and the broader conservative push for an expansive interpretation of Second Amendment protections nationwide could still present a strong defense strategy.

In the United States v. Daniels case from the Fifth Circuit, the defendant, Patrick Daniels, successfully argued that the law was at odds with the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling due to his status as a frequent marijuana user. The court found that disarming a sober citizen based solely on past drug use lacked historical support.

While Hunter Biden’s case differs from Daniels in several ways, his legal team can still leverage the ruling and the arguments made therein to challenge the law’s constitutionality in their client’s case, potentially leading to dropped charges or a successful appeal if he is convicted.

In addition to factual disparities, Hunter Biden’s attorneys face challenges because any appeal from the Delaware court would go to the Third Circuit, covering Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, rather than the Fifth Circuit. Nonetheless, the differing rulings on the gun possession law post-Bruen introduce substantial uncertainty regarding its legality, making it a viable argument in Hunter Biden’s defense.

President Biden had previously voiced his opposition to the conservative majority’s decision in Bruen and had worked to defend the New York gun law at the center of the case. He characterized the ruling as contradicting common sense and the Constitution.

The boundaries of the Bruen ruling will be further examined when the Supreme Court reviews a federal law prohibiting individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. The decision in United States v. Rahimi, cited heavily in the Daniels case, could lead to another significant ruling related to firearms from the conservative-majority court.

Hunter Biden’s attorneys may find themselves hoping for more expansive Second Amendment decisions to bolster their case, as defense lawyers seek favorable case law to support their arguments in such settings.

TAGS

Hunter Biden, Second Amendment, Supreme Court, Federal gun charge, Michael Alber, Mike Alber, Michael J. Alber, Michael Alber, Mike Alber attorney, Michael Alber, Mike Alber NY Attorney, Long Island Criminal Defense Lawyer, Long Island Criminal Defense Attorney, Suffolk County Criminal Defense Lawyer, Suffolk County Criminal Defense Attorney, Nassau County Criminal Defense Lawyer, Nassau County Criminal Defense Attorney, Law Offices of Michael J. Alber, Criminal Defense lawyer, criminal defense attorney, Federal criminal defense lawyer, federal criminal appeal lawyer, New York criminal defense lawyer, New York Criminal Defense Attorney, New York Appeal Lawyer, New York Appeal Lawyers, New York Appeals Lawyer, New York Appeals Lawyers, New York criminal appeal lawyer, New York criminal appeal lawyers, New York criminal appeals lawyer, New York .criminal appeals lawyers, post conviction relief, post conviction relief lawyer, post conviction relief attorney, New York Appeal Attorney, New York Appeal Attorneys, New York Appeals Attorney, New York Appeals Attorneys, New York criminal appeal attorney, New York criminal appeal attorneys, New York criminal appeals attorney, New York criminal appeals attorneys, New York Appellate Lawyer, New York Appellate Lawyers, New York Appellate Lawyer, New York Appellate Lawyers, New York criminal appellate lawyer, New York criminal appellate lawyers, New York criminal appellate lawyer, New York criminal appellate lawyers, post conviction relief, post conviction relief lawyer, post conviction relief attorney, New York Appellate Attorney, New York Appellate Attorneys, New York Appellate Attorney, New York Appellate Attorneys, New York criminal appellate attorney, New York criminal appellate attorneys, New York criminal appellate attorney, New York criminal appellate attorneys,