Rehaif v. United States

Hamid Rehaif, a UAE national, entered the U.S. on a student visa but was dismissed from university, losing his legal status. He later visited a shooting range and purchased ammunition. Federal prosecutors charged him with violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), which prohibits aliens illegally in the United States from possessing firearms or ammunition. At trial, the judge instructed the jury that the government did not need to prove Rehaif knew he was in the country unlawfully. He was convicted and appealed. The Supreme Court reviewed whether the word “knowingly” in § 924(a)(2) requires the government to prove the defendant knew of his prohibited status. In a 7-2 decision, the Court held that the mens rea requirement applies to the status element, meaning the prosecution must show the defendant was aware of his illegal immigration status.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, holding 7-2 that the “knowingly” requirement applies to both the possession element and the status element. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Whether the government, in a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and § 924(a)(2), must prove that the defendant knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm at the time of the offense.

The ruling raised the burden of proof in federal firearms prosecutions by requiring the government to establish that defendants subjectively knew of their prohibited status. This significantly impacts prosecutions of illegal aliens, convicted felons, and other restricted groups, reinforcing the presumption that mens rea attaches to every material element of a criminal offense.