Supreme Court Rebuffs Nonviolent Felon Gun-Rights Appeal (1)

The US Supreme Court declined to consider restoring the gun rights of people convicted of nonviolent felonies, turning away an appeal from a Utah woman convicted 18 years ago of trying to pass a bad check at a grocery store.

The rebuff came at the urging of the Trump administration. US Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices the issue will be adequately addressed through a new program under which the Justice Department can restore the gun rights of convicted felons on a case-by-case basis.

The Monday morning rejection came 30 minutes before the court began hearing arguments in a related case that could narrow the federal ban on firearm possession by drug users and addicts. The case, which centers on a Texas man who allegedly is a frequent marijuana user, involves the legal provision that was used to convict Hunter Biden, the former president’s son.

The appeal spurned by the court sought to narrow the federal law that bars gun possession by anyone convicted of a felony. Melynda Vincent said the law can’t constitutionally be applied to people whose criminal pasts don’t involve violence.

“Our historical tradition of firearms regulation does not permit the federal government to permanently disarm someone based solely on the fact of a prior nonviolent criminal conviction,” Vincent argued. She says she wants a firearm for protection and to go hunting with her children.

In ruling against Vincent, the Denver-based 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals pointed to a passage in the 2008 Supreme Court decision that said the Constitution’s Second Amendment protects individual gun rights. The majority added that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons.”

Other federal appeals courts have taken a different position, saying the Second Amendment protects at least nondangerous convicted felons.

Sauer, the Trump administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, said Vincent would have a “strong case for relief” if she applied to have her gun rights restored through the new Justice Department program. But he said the availability of that process “dooms the Second Amendment challenge.”

The Justice Department program “provides a more workable process for restoring firearms rights than would a court-administered regime of as-applied challenges,” Sauer said.

Vincent countered that the Justice Department program would give government officials the type of discretion the Supreme Court has previously said is problematic. The court in 2022 struck down a New York law that required people to show “proper cause” to get a concealed-carry license, in part because it gave local officials broad leeway to decide whether the standard had been met.

The Supreme Court’s docket is already heavy with gun cases. The justices are separately reviewing a Hawaii law that bars people from bringing firearms to malls, stores and other private property without the owner’s express permission.

The Supreme Court separately rejected an appeal by Christian Lamont Thompson, who was charged with illegally possessing a firearm after two prior felony convictions for attempted distribution of cocaine. Like Vincent, he sought to argue that the federal felon-in-possession law couldn’t constitutionally be applied to him.

The case is Vincent v. Bondi, 24-1155.

(Describes Monday argument in third paragraph.)

To contact the reporter on this story:
Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Elizabeth Wasserman at ewasserman2@bloomberg.net

Steve Stroth

© 2026 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.